Ice Age Earth

[jgordon1111]

Yes Scotty I was aware of the fact that player was right all along, just trying to lead her down the path of least resistance as it were,clarity the first time alleviates mass confusion later

[PLAYER57832]

So player, the gist of your overall statement is everyone likes seafood, but again I point out your previous statement(you) generalized (our) food chain is in the ocean, who is exactly (our), I can think of a few islands and some costal locations that may fall into the category you suggest, but not enough for the broad sweeping statement you describe

No, read again. The short is that EVERYTHING living depends upon a healthy ocean.

The sea helps create the air we breath, the water we need, helps set the weather, etc.

In short, it's theorized that the very same comet (another large chunk) did hit the ocean, the older dryas impact event/epoch, ejecting trillions of gallons of water into the atmosphere, causing rapid cooling, and a bunch of other unimaginable stuff I can't remember exactly what happens.

No, this actually does not make sense, for a lot of reasons, but without knowing why you think it could be true, its hard to see how you came to think this. If you provide a link or more information, I can at least look at it.

I know how your'e gonna reply so i'll point out that the point isn't whether this comet can be proven to have hit the ocean when it's theorized it did, but rather that the earth is 2/3 water and 1/3 land, therefore every single asteroid and comet that hit our planet has a 2/3 chance of landing in the ocean. An asteroid could hit the ocean tomorrow, reverse everything we think we know about climate change, erase all our progress we made towards preventing climate change, make us realize we are dealing in a reality that is normal in the earth's opinion, meaning these incalculable measurements show us we were trying to save the earth on a scale 1/100,000,000 of our new reality, make our climate factors meaningless for 1,000 years.

Not "could" but "have" -- well, not comets, but meteorites. However, why do you think the impact would be as you describe?

That is, there is an idea that a very large object will hit earth and quite possibly end life, in a variety of different possible scenarios depending on the exact size and where it hit. There is even a group of scientist working on ways to mitigate this. They are looking at things like diverting or destroying these large objects in space. Sooo... that is not a question, its the rest of what you say that is.

My point is, whatever you are so worried about, has happened on a scale gajillion billion times larger, all at once.

Not as you describe, no.

[Phatscotty]

I notice you cut out all the direct questions I asked you, guess that means you don't have to answer them and likely would rather just ignore the fact that oceanic impacts from space happen all the time according to earth history.

One more shot Player - per the ocean's health status and your worries about it... It's already been shown that every nuclear bomb on the earth set off combined at the same time is about 4 gigatons. Asteroid/meteorite/comet impacts range from 240,000 gigatons down to 5 giagtons. So, best case scenario, 5 gigatons of energy set off by the smallest impact in the ocean, what is the status of the oceans health?

[AndyDufresne]

One more shot Player

--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

I notice you cut out all the direct questions I asked you, guess that means you don't have to answer them and likely would rather just ignore the fact that oceanic impacts from space happen all the time according to earth history.

Referring to me? No, it means that your questions assuming things I don't accept as fact... and apparently, you are unwilling to clarify why you think these things are facts.

I mean, if you asked me how a dog turns into a kangaroo, i would have a hard time answering, too. I would first ask why you think a dog might turn into a kangeroo.

One more shot Player - per the ocean's health status and your worries about it... It's already been shown that every nuclear bomb on the earth set off combined at the same time is about 4 gigatons. Asteroid/meteorite/comet impacts range from 240,000 gigatons down to 5 giagtons. So, best case scenario, 5 gigatons of energy set off by the smallest impact in the ocean, what is the status of the oceans health?

Set aside that you don't seem to know the difference between a comet, asteroid and meteorite (and its pretty significant to your points),
to compare a nuclear bomb to an asteroid is not all that helpful, because the major harm from a bomb is really the radiation, not the impact itself.

Aside from that, yes, there have been several very large meteorite strikes. A big one hitting the ocean would be catastrophic. That has nothing at all to do with human's impact on the changing climate. I have no idea why you seem to think the two are even related, unless you are trying to say that a meteor is going to hit us in the next century or so. That might be, but that is like saying "I might get hit by a car, so why worry about my kids getting measles?"

[Phatscotty]

I notice you cut out all the direct questions I asked you, guess that means you don't have to answer them and likely would rather just ignore the fact that oceanic impacts from space happen all the time according to earth history.

Referring to me? No, it means that your questions assuming things I don't accept as fact... and apparently, you are unwilling to clarify why you think these things are facts.

I mean, if you asked me how a dog turns into a kangaroo, i would have a hard time answering, too. I would first ask why you think a dog might turn into a kangeroo.

Well, I could just copy/paste the everything you purposefully excluded in the post you responded to...... let's see if we can get you to put forth a simple answer to a simple question first. Continuing to avoid said question will only make it further seem that you are afraid to have your beliefs challenged.

One more shot Player - per the ocean's health status and your worries about it... It's already been shown that every nuclear bomb on the earth set off combined at the same time is about 4 gigatons. Asteroid/meteorite/comet impacts range from 240,000 gigatons down to 5 giagtons. So, best case scenario, 5 gigatons of energy set off by the smallest impact in the ocean, what is the status of the oceans health?

Set aside that you don't seem to know the difference between a comet, asteroid and meteorite (and its pretty significant to your points),
to compare a nuclear bomb to an asteroid is not all that helpful, because the major harm from a bomb is really the radiation, not the impact itself.

Aside from that, yes, there have been several very large meteorite strikes. A big one hitting the ocean would be catastrophic. That has nothing at all to do with human's impact on the changing climate. I have no idea why you seem to think the two are even related, unless you are trying to say that a meteor is going to hit us in the next century or so. That might be, but that is like saying "I might get hit by a car, so why worry about my kids getting measles?"

I'm not asking you to understand the facts and their relationship, and I'm certainly not asking for or interested in your analogies that you think debunk my analogy, not to mention my analogy cannot even be made until you address the question I've asked you for the third time now. Put your agenda and your bias aside for a moment, stop fearing that a challenge may exist, and focus on what I'm asking you in the name of what is true. I'm asking you, what is the health status of the ocean when even the smallest possible object from space slams into the ocean? Try answering the direct question first, only then can we worry about plugging it in and making comparisons and the validity of said comparisons.

[tzor]

One more shot Player - per the ocean's health status and your worries about it... It's already been shown that every nuclear bomb on the earth set off combined at the same time is about 4 gigatons. Asteroid/meteorite/comet impacts range from 240,000 gigatons down to 5 giagtons. So, best case scenario, 5 gigatons of energy set off by the smallest impact in the ocean, what is the status of the oceans health?

It's actually been a very long time since I have seen literature on impacts into oceans, but it's probably not what you think it is. Most of the energy is expended in turning the water to steam. Seismic waves disperse a lot of the kinetic energy quickly. You are going to have to hit a deep ocean ridge to not have most of the impact hit solid ground, so a lot of the energy is finally disbursed into the harder earth, and as a result a lot of the impact results in solid matter being thrown into the air.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm asking you, what is the health status of the ocean when even the smallest possible object from space slams into the ocean? Try answering the direct question first, only then can we worry about plugging it in and making comparisons and the validity of said comparisons.

Not much happens when an object hits the ocean. It happens all the time.

A VERY large hit, in just the right spot, might cause something like tidal waves and such, but we are talking VERY huge, and hitting in near-shore regions. Just as an example, estimates of Apophos hitting (suggested it might hit in 2036 or thereabouts) suggest it would cause roughly a 3 1/2 foot Tzunami.

A larger impact could do more damage, even up to throwing the Earth off its orbit, killing all life, etc. It is a real risk, albeit small. It just doesn't have anything to do with Global Climate change.

The closest theory of a natural event that might so something like what I think you are suggesting (hard to say since you refuse to be clear) would be massive volcanic eruptions spewing ash everywhere. That is also possible, but unlikely in our lifetime. At any rate, this is where my "seatblet" versus vaccination analogy comes into real play. See, its not that the meteorite hitting is not a risk, its that we defend against that (or at least try) by doing things like planning ways to divert it, in space, etc. Greenhouse gases causing climate change needs us to limit how much carbon dioxide, methane, etc we spew out. AND.. on the subject, we also need to worry about chemicals poisoning various parts of our ecosystem (frogs are first, but we are not far behind), importation of invasive species (the zebra mussel, alone might well shut down shipping the Mississippi river, is already changing ecosystems).

in short, it would be nice if you used your mind to actually discover real problems and solutions instead of these imaginary ones, though the real stuff is more about slow, hard work, not fun conspiracies. You are obviously fairly intelligent, but are too eager to believe things already dismissed by science. (not ignored, just dismissed)

[PLAYER57832]

PS, if you started now you could visit all the known meteorite impact zones in the Americas by March.

Here's a list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i ... th_America

So, when you say "all the time" do you mean at every instant? Are you purposely ignoring the fact that the rate of meteorite impacts is not constant through history or are you not aware of it?

Your "source" is wrong. Several thousand meteorites hit Earth every year. However, they are mostly pretty small. Your mistake, apparently was in equating meteor with "impact crater". Few meteors, even large ones, cause an impact crater. Those hitting the ocean, particularly do not. Given that the Earth is roughly 2/3 ocean.... well, your assumptions are just wrong.

Here is a graph on the larger ones.
http://participatoryscience.org/feature ... -hit-earth

Here is a slightly more alarmist take. Its slightly alarmist, but quite correct when they say that even the US government is now taking the threats more seriously.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/dange ... -1.2417013

[Dukasaur]

hrmm, just had a thought. Maybe mankind being reset to the stone age by such a comet is the answer, maybe it's what you want, or the only way we could actually get humans to give up everything that makes our lives easier and better and faster, leaving more time than ever to actually live a life worth living? A comet hits, clouds the sky and blocks the sun for 50 years.....and no human beings will be burning fossil fuels, no nuclear weapons, no cars, no employers, no money, no grocery store, no textiles, no medicine, no expert scientists, no books, no science, no education, we can spend all our time as hunter gatherers and the earth will finally get a 300 gigaton break from humans and their 400 parts per billion, and nobody will worry about whatever climate change will occur from the sudden and total loss of all that burnt up fossil fuel.

This is a common misconception.

Pound for pound, modern man is a lot cleaner that ancient man. Cave men burned wood fires, sending filthy clouds of black smoke into the air. The Industrial Revolution burned coal, still filthy and black but producing less pollution per capita than wood. The modern age brought diesel fuel. The smoke got cleaner again. Then natural gas, still emitting carbon but once again cleaner than previous fuels. A high efficiency natural gas furnace produces almost nothing but carbon dioxide and water vapour -- it's still a greenhouse gas emitter, but beyond that creates almost no pollution. Looking forward we can see even cleaner fuels in the future.

Per capita, we become steadily cleaner, but overall, we produce more pollution all the time. This is a race we can't win. If we all conserve and produce 50% fewer emissions, but the population doubles, are we any further ahead? No.

Ultimately the race can't be won. There's a finite limit to how clean we can live, but there is no finite limit to population growth. Recycling and other chimeras might give people warm fuzzies, but ultimately they offer no hope. The only cure is reducing population growth. If every country had the population density of Montana we'd be okay.

Rolling back technology is definitely not the answer.

[Metsfanmax]

Pound for pound, modern man is a lot cleaner that ancient man. Cave men burned wood fires, sending filthy clouds of black smoke into the air. The Industrial Revolution burned coal, still filthy and black but producing less pollution per capita than wood. The modern age brought diesel fuel. The smoke got cleaner again. Then natural gas, still emitting carbon but once again cleaner than previous fuels. A high efficiency natural gas furnace produces almost nothing but carbon dioxide and water vapour -- it's still a greenhouse gas emitter, but beyond that creates almost no pollution. Looking forward we can see even cleaner fuels in the future.

Per capita, we become steadily cleaner, but overall, we produce more pollution all the time. This is a race we can't win. If we all conserve and produce 50% fewer emissions, but the population doubles, are we any further ahead? No.

This statement supposes that "modern man" uses the same amount of energy as "ancient man" and is simply getting it from a cleaner source. This is absolutely false -- "modern man" uses far more energy than "ancient man," which means that it's no longer obvious whether, per capita, we're polluting more than we used to, even if we make the assumption that the typical modern fuel is cleaner than the typical pre-industrial fuel.

As an example, here is global carbon emissions over time, from 1900 to 2011:



So over that interval, the amount emitted increased by approximately a factor of ~13. On the other hand, population increased by a factor of just over 4 in that same interval. So per capita, our carbon emissions are actually three times worse than they were in 1900.

In other words, in terms of direct effects, population growth is actually a relatively small part of the problem.

[hotfire]

Pound for pound, modern man is a lot cleaner that ancient man. Cave men burned wood fires, sending filthy clouds of black smoke into the air. The Industrial Revolution burned coal, still filthy and black but producing less pollution per capita than wood. The modern age brought diesel fuel. The smoke got cleaner again. Then natural gas, still emitting carbon but once again cleaner than previous fuels. A high efficiency natural gas furnace produces almost nothing but carbon dioxide and water vapour -- it's still a greenhouse gas emitter, but beyond that creates almost no pollution. Looking forward we can see even cleaner fuels in the future.

Per capita, we become steadily cleaner, but overall, we produce more pollution all the time. This is a race we can't win. If we all conserve and produce 50% fewer emissions, but the population doubles, are we any further ahead? No.

This statement supposes that "modern man" uses the same amount of energy as "ancient man" and is simply getting it from a cleaner source. This is absolutely false -- "modern man" uses far more energy than "ancient man," which means that it's no longer obvious whether, per capita, we're polluting more than we used to, even if we make the assumption that the typical modern fuel is cleaner than the typical pre-industrial fuel.

As an example, here is global carbon emissions over time, from 1900 to 2011:



So over that interval, the amount emitted increased by approximately a factor of ~13. On the other hand, population increased by a factor of just over 4 in that same interval. So per capita, our carbon emissions are actually three times worse than they were in 1900.

In other words, in terms of direct effects, population growth is actually a relatively small part of the problem.

I think duk was talking about sulfur and mercury and lead emissions ...but i agree population growth is not the entire problem. It could become one when developing countries with huge populations try to attain the lifestyle of the developed and survive longer use more resources and yet continue with exponential population growth. Education of women is one of the better methods to prevent this.

[tzor]

Pound for pound, modern man is a lot cleaner that ancient man. Cave men burned wood fires, sending filthy clouds of black smoke into the air. The Industrial Revolution burned coal, still filthy and black but producing less pollution per capita than wood. The modern age brought diesel fuel. The smoke got cleaner again. Then natural gas, still emitting carbon but once again cleaner than previous fuels. A high efficiency natural gas furnace produces almost nothing but carbon dioxide and water vapour -- it's still a greenhouse gas emitter, but beyond that creates almost no pollution. Looking forward we can see even cleaner fuels in the future.

I'm a little disappointed that you had to go to the caveman to get wood burning. Colonial America's iron smelting used enough forests to cause massive soil erosion and it turned the sky black in the middle of the day. This actually lasted until the Civil War, according to a number of timelines I've read.

Another example was the invention of the automobile. In fact there was another pollution that was nearly killing off modern cities; horse manure. The problem had reached epic proportions in a number of cities, especially New York, at the time Ford perfected his mass production of automobiles. Today most of NYC has natural gas powered busses, hybrid taxis, and of course an electric grid to power the subways.

[PLAYER57832]

Ultimately the race can't be won. There's a finite limit to how clean we can live, but there is no finite limit to population growth. Recycling and other chimeras might give people warm fuzzies, but ultimately they offer no hope. The only cure is reducing population growth. If every country had the population density of Montana we'd be okay.

Rolling back technology is definitely not the answer.

The real answer is to better understand how our world actually works and to stop pretending that we live remote from all these processes. Cities are not spaceships. Its not a matter of eating veggies, recycling, not using technology or even just cutting population. The real answer is to take each location separately and to live sustainably in that location, whatever it means.

The real answer means, above all else, to understand that there is "one size fits all" answer. What works in the tropics is NOT the same as what works in the Arctic ... or the desert or temperate forests or rangelands or ...... It is understanding that even within each of these broad categories are many microzones that each will have their own requirements and therefore answers.

Cities may well be part of the answer, but cities with gardens, walls with food-producing planters, pens for smaller animals. Other areas may serve as only temporary habitats, with extreme restrictions. In between lies a whole lot of variation. It is that variation to which we need to look, not pat, single simplistic answers.

[PLAYER57832]

Pound for pound, modern man is a lot cleaner that ancient man. Cave men burned wood fires, sending filthy clouds of black smoke into the air. The Industrial Revolution burned coal, still filthy and black but producing less pollution per capita than wood. The modern age brought diesel fuel. The smoke got cleaner again. Then natural gas, still emitting carbon but once again cleaner than previous fuels. A high efficiency natural gas furnace produces almost nothing but carbon dioxide and water vapour -- it's still a greenhouse gas emitter, but beyond that creates almost no pollution. Looking forward we can see even cleaner fuels in the future.

I'm a little disappointed that you had to go to the caveman to get wood burning. Colonial America's iron smelting used enough forests to cause massive soil erosion and it turned the sky black in the middle of the day. This actually lasted until the Civil War, according to a number of timelines I've read.

Another example was the invention of the automobile. In fact there was another pollution that was nearly killing off modern cities; horse manure. The problem had reached epic proportions in a number of cities, especially New York, at the time Ford perfected his mass production of automobiles. Today most of NYC has natural gas powered busses, hybrid taxis, and of course an electric grid to power the subways.

Except these types of pollution truly were/are different in terms of impact to our world's atmosphere.

It is postulated that smoke from burning made much of Europe dark, the real reason for the term "dark ages", but it was still somewhat isolated. Great swaths of forest still existed, as did huge swells of plankton in the seas.

[Metsfanmax]

I think duk was talking about sulfur and mercury and lead emissions ...but i agree population growth is not the entire problem. It could become one when developing countries with huge populations try to attain the lifestyle of the developed and survive longer use more resources and yet continue with exponential population growth. Education of women is one of the better methods to prevent this.

It is well known that the developed countries have a much lower fertility rate than developing countries. So, possibly, we should be encouraging economic development there as fast as possible, to the extent that we can usefully do so. Of course, the argument I posed above suggests that this would make things worse, not better, since it is really the Western style of living that is the dominant contributor to pollution. But there's no particularly morally justified argument for saying we get to live this way and no one else does.

Also, I can't help but notice how many people who complain about rampant population growth themselves have kids.

[Symmetry]

I think duk was talking about sulfur and mercury and lead emissions ...but i agree population growth is not the entire problem. It could become one when developing countries with huge populations try to attain the lifestyle of the developed and survive longer use more resources and yet continue with exponential population growth. Education of women is one of the better methods to prevent this.

It is well known that the developed countries have a much lower fertility rate than developing countries. So, possibly, we should be encouraging economic development there as fast as possible, to the extent that we can usefully do so. Of course, the argument I posed above suggests that this would make things worse, not better, since it is really the Western style of living that is the dominant contributor to pollution. But there's no particularly morally justified argument for saying we get to live this way and no one else does.

Also, I can't help but notice how many people who complain about rampant population growth themselves have kids.

China isn't a major polluter? Or do you count China as western?

[Metsfanmax]

I think duk was talking about sulfur and mercury and lead emissions ...but i agree population growth is not the entire problem. It could become one when developing countries with huge populations try to attain the lifestyle of the developed and survive longer use more resources and yet continue with exponential population growth. Education of women is one of the better methods to prevent this.

It is well known that the developed countries have a much lower fertility rate than developing countries. So, possibly, we should be encouraging economic development there as fast as possible, to the extent that we can usefully do so. Of course, the argument I posed above suggests that this would make things worse, not better, since it is really the Western style of living that is the dominant contributor to pollution. But there's no particularly morally justified argument for saying we get to live this way and no one else does.

Also, I can't help but notice how many people who complain about rampant population growth themselves have kids.

China isn't a major polluter? Or do you count China as western?

China has been rapidly industrializing to achieve the Western standard of living, which is why they are polluting so much. However their CO2 emissions per capita are still lower than that of, say, the UK. (And far below that of the US/Canada.) While that has happened, their birth rate has fallen to a level comparable to that of the US and UK. In fact it has gotten to the point where China is actively concerned that they're not having enough children born.

[tzor]

China isn't a major polluter? Or do you count China as western?

China is an odd example. First of all China is huge, there are major differences in the various parts of China with vast farmlands and small rapidly growing industrial sites. Population growth was artificially curtailed by strong force especially in the less developed farmlands where manpower is still important in order to work the fields. Politics generally prevented protests over pollution. You have to reach epic proportions in order to get an industry to stop doing things that significantly harmed the people. Finally, for a long time, China was used as a pollution dumping ground. They make solar panels because they can do so without environmental regulations that increase the price of solar panels, but at the expense of the local environment. So they are a industrial nation, a developing nation, and an agrarian nation at the same time; because they are so huge.

[Metsfanmax]

China is huge

This is an important point. In terms of population density, China is actually in the middle of the pack. Roughly speaking, an important reason it has so many people because of its geographical size and not because the Chinese have more babies than everyone else.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

An unanswered question I still have for flood-denialism.

Everyone knows the earth used to be in an ice age, right?

How did it come to be everyone is auto-programmed to laugh at the mere mention of the 'The Great Flood'?

Have we really never had to wonder for ourselves what happened to all the ice??? Is it really so silly to entertain the idea that the ice melted, turned into water, and flooded the oceans???

I cant be bothered to read the entire thread.

I presume everyone is aware that there was a great flood, it just wasnt quite global. It was centred on the black sea at about the right time. Sounds like the entire "world" of those who wrote down the story did indeed flood.

[Phatscotty]

One more shot Player - per the ocean's health status and your worries about it... It's already been shown that every nuclear bomb on the earth set off combined at the same time is about 4 gigatons. Asteroid/meteorite/comet impacts range from 240,000 gigatons down to 5 giagtons. So, best case scenario, 5 gigatons of energy set off by the smallest impact in the ocean, what is the status of the oceans health?

It's actually been a very long time since I have seen literature on impacts into oceans, but it's probably not what you think it is. Most of the energy is expended in turning the water to steam. Seismic waves disperse a lot of the kinetic energy quickly. You are going to have to hit a deep ocean ridge to not have most of the impact hit solid ground, so a lot of the energy is finally disbursed into the harder earth, and as a result a lot of the impact results in solid matter being thrown into the air.

I had admitted I didn't remember what else the person said, but yeah it's probably not.

[Phatscotty]

An unanswered question I still have for flood-denialism.

Everyone knows the earth used to be in an ice age, right?

How did it come to be everyone is auto-programmed to laugh at the mere mention of the 'The Great Flood'?

Have we really never had to wonder for ourselves what happened to all the ice??? Is it really so silly to entertain the idea that the ice melted, turned into water, and flooded the oceans???

I cant be bothered to read the entire thread.

I presume everyone is aware that there was a great flood, it just wasnt quite global. It was centred on the black sea at about the right time. Sounds like the entire "world" of those who wrote down the story did indeed flood.

Different flood bro