Note: The sun only has about 5 billion years of fuel left. Plus, as it ages, it will grow hotter so that in perhaps less than 1 billion years, it will be too much for us (at least, in our current form).Originally posted by Sunfist
Humans could cause some major short-term damage to the environment of Earth, but 2 trillion years from now things would be fine again.)
Excellent point.Originally posted by FZ+
Isn't it a bit of a misnomer to say that nature can threaten the environment? We need to add the qualifier that we are talking about the present evironment, or the human friendly environment.
Note: Our sun will neither go "nova" or "supernova" (which are very different things by the way). It will swell up into a "red giant" (perhaps engulfing the Earth) and then shrink down to a "white dwarf".Impact: Sun going nova.
HUH? try like seven thousand, and more, in reserves, and storages etc. etc.Originally posted by nucleartear
About the nuclear power, maybe there are only 100 nuclear bombs in good conditions around the world, and the politicians and the military have invented the numbers...
Have u ever seen them?Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
HUH? try like seven thousand, and more, in reserves, and storages etc. etc.
Sorry, can you read my post and tell me if I have said "greenhouse effect"? I haven't... In fact, I say "global-heating", and this concept envolve all reasons that make this effect... and, since three people have talked about climate changes, I posted that... that was not a reply only to you... (I don't undestand why you are so ugly with me sniff, sniff)Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons And when I mentioned "heating", I do not mean the greenhouse effect, I mean the actual and real heat that is generated every single day by human activities, compounded as to add to the greenhouse effect. (run your car, turn on the lights, take a shower, cook dinner, all that HEAT!) [/B]
Yes and no. Yes, in that naturally the earth may be getting hotter. No for that natural being the dominant factor.Since we are at inter-glacial age, could some facts of the global-heating be explained by a no-human reason?
Can you see how your second statement is in contradiction to your first statement?, inasmuch as you seem to have decided that I was ugly with you, apparently based upon nothing more then me clarifieing my point.Originally posted by nucleartear
... (I don't undestand why you are so ugly with me sniff, sniff)
As I have said, I don't try to free us of all our failures, but I think we must to be less sensationalists and more objectives...
Since meteorology and paleontologic-meteorology are not very developed I read their data with care... We only have trustworthy data for the last century, and before the S.XIX some eventual points... At these points we can see the worst flood in the History of Europe was at S.XVII (some times bigger than the ones of the last summer) and the worst drought was at Middle Age (some years with drought, maybe be with highter temperatures than this summer)... that mind that the records of this last years are not History records... Maybe some time at the past we suffered another climate change like this one but it come back to the equilibrium state in few decades or centuries...Originally posted by FZ+
Yes and no. Yes, in that naturally the earth may be getting hotter. No for that natural being the dominant factor.
If we look at ice core records and amazon rainforest growth data, we can see that the rate of change of the climate is abnormally fast. In fact, evidence shows that natural factors etc are currently working to damp down the effect from greenhouse gases, and this effect will not last much longer.
Global heating is probably a bad word, as though on average we may see an increase in temperature, what we are in fact seeing is a change in the weather system of the world. Places like the UK would actually get colder due to disrupted ocean currents. Basically, as weather is a chaotic system, we should expect to see more unpredictable extremes of temperature, such as the recent heatwaves.
As far as I know, of course.
Sorry! Maybe I have had a linguistic problem! (english is not my commun language)Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...inasmuch as you seem to have decided that I was ugly with you, apparently based upon nothing more then me clarifieing my point.
Thanx! That's my first mounth here and I am not very up-to-date!Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for the nukes. If I find the time, I will find the link to the previous discourse, on that topic, in the PF forums, and link that one for you.
KillaMarcilla.KillaMarcilla said:Man, I was pretty convinced that people will always be fine and the environment won't get totally screwed up, but I was reading a biology textbook earlier today and it sounds like we're screwing things up pretty nicely
All sorts of cropland is being destroyed by overusing it and not letting salts drain out of the soil, underground water supplies are being depleted faster than they're regenerating themselves, acid rain is harming fish populations, petroleum supplies are running out and won't be there to help humanity bootstrap itself back up if there's a catastrophic collapse of civilization, and by 2010 there won't be any untouched rainforests left except for a few small tracts..
Even just that last part is really vicious, considering all the possible advances in medicine and biology in general that could come from studying the rainforests
I mean, I'm sure that humanity doesn't presently have the power to prevent the Earth from still being stocked with all sorts of life when the sun explodes four billion years from now, but I'm also pretty sure that we'll be able to cause plenty of trouble for ourselves, and maybe eventually we'll warp enough of the biosphere that only a thousandth of the people we have now will be able to live here afterward
Last time i checked humanity is part of nature too and originated from this planet.Provide one activity nature and humans do that posses the most threat to the enviroment? ---Greg.