EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:20 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:20 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2301
Location: Central Colorado
eco wrote:
I think there was enough nuclear bombs to destry the world at least 100 times over in the early 80's now probably a couple of warheads sent over 5 minutes would kiill all living creatures besides cockroaches. If they could do that in the 40's, the scary thing what could be done today 70 years later?

There were around 35,000 nuclear warheads then, and now about half that. Sagan et al determined it would take a thousand to create a nuclear winter, so 500 would be safely under that threshold.
But we have this next post.....

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:43 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2301
Location: Central Colorado
Fosgate wrote:
I take it that a more ethical approach would be allowing more folks to suffer and die off via natural collapse (that we were reasonably sure was going to happen) rather than culling fewer in advance to prevent. 'Course, visibility is the real issue, isn't it? If we were to cull, the media circus created of it and opinions on both sides would be strong enough to bring on sheer mayhem anyway. Better to play it safe and let things crumble in their own due time. That way, no one really knows how many suffer and die because survivors will generally keep to themselves with minimal contact outside of

How about it Johnny? You think?

This is a more likely scenario. 95% die-off in 20 years or so. Hopefully all the media will die off or be reduced to cannibalism. 400 million per year dying off, without burial, stinking or being eaten by others. The soots settling out and real global warming setting in. Tougher and tougher conditions faster and faster for the 1/2 billion survivors. Species dying off in greater and greater numbers as thermageddon (term from the early 90s book) takes hold with many times more CO2 and self releasing methane. Entire sections of oceans warming then fizzing up in methane bursts with tsunamis, as the oceans rise 80 feet or more. Gradual die-off of more survivors, and most species.
The end of the Anthropocene Epoch and the beginning of a long recovery, with harsh conditions prevailing a very long time until becoming slowly more amenable to life. Even the Yellowstone super eruption will not cool it down more than 10*F from the +25*F, in 2000 years. Then those aerosols will also settle out.
The chances of humans making it are slim. While at the undersea "smokers", life goes on.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group