The future of Global Warming is uncertain. Perhaps Richard Lindzen is right, and natural sequestration processes will prevent significant warming. Phew!
Or perhaps the maximally pessimistic scenario is right: humans will continue to burn fossil fuels until they're all gone. In response, fast-acting positive feedback mechanisms will raise CO2 levels to 800 ppm over the next 500 years, raising average global temperatures by 35 C. Fortunately, there is not enough carbon on the Earth to turn us into Venus. The habitable zone will shrink to the Arctic and Antarctic. There will be many wars, and a few nuclear wars. But a few humans will successfully move far from the equator, and be able to defend themselves. They'll have technology, and breeder reactors. They'll farm in the winter and hunker down with air conditioning in the summer. After 10,000 years, it will all be over and new civilizations will emerge into a new, fossil-fuel-free world, with whatever species they've saved.
2007-07-31
09:04:09
·
15 answers
·
asked by
cosmo
7
in
Environment
➔ Global Warming
I'm just going to leave this question for people to vote. I'm not happy with any answer.
IMHO, the two scenarios outllined above do represent the best and worst likely outcomes of our current dilemma. The good news is that some humans and some animals survive. What do we owe our distant descendants? Do we really care that they curse us when we're gone? Does it really matter how many humans survive, as long as some do? How important is civilization anyway? The world has seen mass extinctions and the collapse of civilizations many times in the past; they are a part of life.
One problem for those emerging from the global warming nightmare will be the absense of fossil fuels. When the Milankovitch catch up with them and start driving toward the next ice age, it would be a good thing to have some fossil fuel around to increase greenhouse gasses.
2007-08-02
11:46:34 ·
update #1