General Discussion

Drew Richards

(1,558 posts)

34. You know...I was going to argue and bitch about some people posting here

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 07:40 PM

Dec 2012

That they have an innate or intentional response to spew without doing any linear thinking on subjects like this...

but, I wont.

I will just posit this for you to think about...

paraphrasing: so what, the human race will survive from global climatic changes...

Ummm DUH you really think so?

The last major climatic change took 10 million years to settle back to planitary equalibrium, and gave rise to us as the dominate species.

Well MAYBE...just MAYBE if we were exclusively an agrarian society or PRE Industrial society that had not invented our own dooms day fucking timebomb known as NUCLEAR POWER...

Or do you think all the "Humans" that survive will be the nuclear power engineers and disposal experts? Sadly some might actually believe this...

If we have castastrophic climate change I don't care what percent survive...there will NOT be enough people with the expertise to keep these plants safe no matter whether they naturally scram and shutdown to low power mode or are manually shutdown.

WITHOUT CONSTANT MAINTAINENCE These plants will eventually leak dispersing unknown amounts of radioactivity depending on how severe and how MANY leaks or god forbid explosions occur...

Add to that there is NOONE to continue to encase the OLD radioactive waste and bury it...well

You are looking at WORLD WIDE radioactivity so severe that NOTHING not even cockroaches will survive...for an estimated decay rate if it ALL (and it wont) were decaying at the same rate of 300 million years before it decays from Uranium through the decay chart to LEAD...

Get that? 300 MILLION YEAR of Super Radioactivity encompassing the planet...

Oh and just we alone in the US have 106 of these timebombs, in 31 US states, in various states of repair today with an average age of 22 years old already...and they are NOT in the greatist of shape or quality of design...yes they are the best of 1970's technology but things have changed, and new designs should have been implemented 15 years ago instead of re-upping contracts on these old brittle systems...

Now go suck on that Methane while you can because when the radioactivity hits you, YOURE TOAST.

WE ALL ARE.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GLOBAL EXTINCTION WITHIN ONE HUMAN LIFETIME? [View all] Th1onein Dec 2012 OP

I'm not sure about extinction, but the only humans to live Warpy Dec 2012 #1

So what if we decreased our chances of survival then, right? The Doctor. Dec 2012 #10

I came to terms with the fact a long time ago Warpy Dec 2012 #18

Maybe, maybe not. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #127

Don't forget my favorite, a gamma ray burst! n/t Cary Dec 2012 #102

That's my favorite, too Warpy Dec 2012 #103

This is going on now. MrYikes Dec 2012 #2

Blogging or global extinction? Coyotl Dec 2012 #70

Now, that's scary ReRe Dec 2012 #3

Dated February 2012 dipsydoodle Dec 2012 #4

End of 2011, methane gas surfacing caused "holes" in the sea surface kilometers across BelgianMadCow Dec 2012 #5

Yep. Methane release in huge amounts has been noted for a while now. redqueen Dec 2012 #17

Epistemic Closure coming to an end? Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2012 #6

Human Extinction is Just One Generation Away-Around 2030 triplepoint Dec 2012 #7

Re: the last video freedom fighter jh Dec 2012 #12

To be perfectly honest...... AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #119

lets prevent this dennisbaker Dec 2012 #8

It's too late. eShirl Dec 2012 #9

yes MoonRiver Dec 2012 #50

It's going to be so satisfying to tell the Repugs "I told you so" Xipe Totec Dec 2012 #101

Welcome to DU! hrmjustin Dec 2012 #14

there are huge swatches of land area that putting solar on wouldn't harm food production at all NMDemDist2 Dec 2012 #19

they're still viable ecosystems-- converting them to solar farms would destroy them.... mike_c Dec 2012 #32

it'll do a hell of a lot less damage than the fracking and the oil fields NMDemDist2 Dec 2012 #43

Welcome to DU, Dennis! My name is Patrice. & I think working the odds makes very rational sense. patrice Dec 2012 #58

With everything that the republicans are oldbanjo Dec 2012 #11

This article is absurd. jeff47 Dec 2012 #13

Permian Mass Extinction davekriss Dec 2012 #15

If 70% of land vertebrates go extinct, humans will almost certainly be in the 30% Silent3 Dec 2012 #22

Hmmm davekriss Dec 2012 #39

The only hyperbole I'm talking about is the use of the word "extinction" is regards to humans Silent3 Dec 2012 #44

If everything else dies, what will they eat? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #61

The 30% of land vertabrates who did survive the Permian extinction... Silent3 Dec 2012 #71

They had 100,000 years to reshuffle their genes and adapt via natural selection NoOneMan Dec 2012 #79

Humans adapt quite a bit without having to evolve Silent3 Dec 2012 #83

This message was self-deleted by its author Eddie Haskell Dec 2012 #63

Probably more like a few billion in all likelihood. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #126

Billions could go hungry from global warming by 2100 NoOneMan Dec 2012 #133

IPCC models are not conservative anymore, at least not temperature wise. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #143

Moreover davekriss Dec 2012 #40

The word extinction is not hyperbole when used to describe the state of the natural world. Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #100

Didja notice that your example didn't wipe out all life on Earth? jeff47 Dec 2012 #26

Your faith in humanity exceeds my own davekriss Dec 2012 #41

It's not faith. It's evidence. jeff47 Dec 2012 #48

Human beings are still arguing over climate change and evolution. FedUpWithIt All Dec 2012 #45

Consensus has nothing to do with survival jeff47 Dec 2012 #49

Heat. FedUpWithIt All Dec 2012 #88

No. It's not going to get hot enough. jeff47 Dec 2012 #97

Obviously you do not understand the things you're discussing. FedUpWithIt All Dec 2012 #99

So the fact that you only know one limitation on phytoplankton makes you an expert? jeff47 Dec 2012 #110

Well.... AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #113

The Permian extinction took place over 100,000 years NoOneMan Dec 2012 #59

You exactly explain why our species won't get wiped out. jeff47 Dec 2012 #64

"We don't know the lower threshold for a viable population. It's probably somewhere between a dozen" NoOneMan Dec 2012 #67

They just have to breed. They can do that. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2012 #75

The rich I know can't even mow their own lawns NoOneMan Dec 2012 #80

10 million years davekriss Dec 2012 #16

For animals -no intelligent life forms- to recover, it took 10 million years. randome Dec 2012 #31

Heck, were in the OP did it say extinction is a forgone conclusion davekriss Dec 2012 #42

In the last sentence of the excerpt muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #46

I'm glad I had my orange juice, then davekriss Dec 2012 #47

Warming is projected to happen at 20X the rate of past warmings NoOneMan Dec 2012 #51

And intelligence means humans "evolve" much, much faster than natural evolution. jeff47 Dec 2012 #57

It means we do not really evolve at all, as we have removed ourselves from the natural system NoOneMan Dec 2012 #60

No, it means we have another source of evolutionary pressure jeff47 Dec 2012 #62

Once famine and disasters take their toll (and they will) NoOneMan Dec 2012 #65

Population bottlenecks are not fatal to a species jeff47 Dec 2012 #66

As you mentioned earlier, it only takes 12 of us inbreeding in a dome to carry on NoOneMan Dec 2012 #68

And you still fail to provide any specifics jeff47 Dec 2012 #76

And your biggest refutation is science fiction NoOneMan Dec 2012 #78

Again, you are trying to pretend we're just like any other animal. jeff47 Dec 2012 #81

Is there a word for death of everyone but extraordinarily rich elites? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #82

I think you meant "adapt" not "evolve". Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #156

There is ONE exception to the rule, though. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #114

Various megafauna species NoOneMan Dec 2012 #118

Perhaps, but my point still does stand. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #129

We wont even have temperatures that support photosynthesis in the US breadbasket NoOneMan Dec 2012 #131

That graph seems more than a little too pessimistic to even be partly realistic, TBH. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #141

Why is Ortiz, et al lying to us? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #144

Did I imply that anyone was lying? Did I? (No.) AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #145

Its already slowing down NoOneMan Dec 2012 #146

Not linearly, though. Not yet. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #147

Then just keep whistling past the graveyard NoOneMan Dec 2012 #150

Whatever you say. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #152

BTW... NoOneMan Dec 2012 #122

Don't like the World Bank? Eddie Haskell Dec 2012 #107

Very true, Jeff. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #112

...was once in our atmosphere. longship Dec 2012 #128

Your grasp of chemistry is poor. jeff47 Dec 2012 #130

When the Supreme Court handed the Presidency to Bush in 2000 undeterred Dec 2012 #20

+10,000--I couldn't agree more and that's how I felt at the time zazen Dec 2012 #28

Yes... we let it happen in 2000 undeterred Dec 2012 #35

Wouldn't Gore's term still be over at the end of the year? northoftheborder Dec 2012 #53

It'd be funny if it weren't so painful that the End-Timers are right, just not in the particular patrice Dec 2012 #52

Yes. Gore would have made a difference. Enough? Who knows, but it would have been better. The Wielding Truth Dec 2012 #73

Clinton was taking the threat by Osama bin Laden seriously undeterred Dec 2012 #77

Yep. I agree. The Wielding Truth Dec 2012 #87

This summer will be telling nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #21

Drought you say? obliviously Dec 2012 #30

Drought: an old movie that left a VERY deep mark on me was The Man Who Fell to Earth. nt patrice Dec 2012 #56

Related article from current Scientific American mag Danascot Dec 2012 #23

It's already happened. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #24

I died when the acid rain Riftaxe Dec 2012 #69

I did a lot of work for the Rainforest Action Network in the late 80s. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #72

Yeah, I guess those claims didn't quite pan out NoOneMan Dec 2012 #89

Yes- 'cuz if we dont sign on to every piece of absurdist hyperbole, we dont care about the problem. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #90

Im not sure it is absurdist hyperbole NoOneMan Dec 2012 #91

I agree it is a real, serious problem. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #92

BTW, sadly... NoOneMan Dec 2012 #93

This is where we part ways. I think lying to people makes them tune it out. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #95

I don't think presenting a possibility as a predetermined outcome is an equivilent to a "lie" NoOneMan Dec 2012 #96

Not trying to be snarky, but you're using the internet right now, right? Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #104

Hydro NoOneMan Dec 2012 #105

Nice. I'm on an 100% renewable plan here in Oregon, too. Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #106

There probably aren't real world steps NoOneMan Dec 2012 #108

It IS indeed, very much absurdist hyperbole, and that's being a tad polite, IMHO. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #148

Once again, Thank You. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #149

I would settle if the current money train Riftaxe Dec 2012 #155

Well said, probably either of us could list 100 reasons Riftaxe Dec 2012 #154

Warren, I have to agree with that 100%. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #115

Cool. greytdemocrat Dec 2012 #25

I'm with you. Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #55

Re: "Being reminded WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! every other day accomplishes nothing." AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #117

The GOP Dream Turbineguy Dec 2012 #27

Yes; we went through this a few months ago muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #29

Very astute of you. randome Dec 2012 #37

Exactly so, Muriel........n/t AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #137

"We Will All Go Together When We Go" annabanana Dec 2012 #33

You know...I was going to argue and bitch about some people posting here Drew Richards Dec 2012 #34

It's not a scientific article. It's a blog post. Viking12 Dec 2012 #36

Both the IEA and the World Bank have the same forecast ... Eddie Haskell Dec 2012 #38

Which to me possibly explains maybe a little something about Citizens United. nt patrice Dec 2012 #54

It's probably too late. raouldukelives Dec 2012 #74

Apparently practically nobody at DU believes this is a possibility whatchamacallit Dec 2012 #84

Few do but they are here NoOneMan Dec 2012 #85

and then we have reports from DOHA about the US refusing to decarbonise further BelgianMadCow Dec 2012 #86

People have been predicting "GLOBAL EXTINCTION" within their lifetime for thousands of years... cbdo2007 Dec 2012 #121

Not necessarily narcissistic, IMO..... AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #123

It's irrational that it will happen at all....but narcissistic that we will witness it. cbdo2007 Dec 2012 #132

Because it practically isn't, all things considered. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #125

Subject is in All Caps so I just assume it's true... NeedleCast Dec 2012 #94

Can't argue with that! NoPasaran Dec 2012 #98

Is there any way to capture the methane? KamaAina Dec 2012 #109

It's an extreme view of a serious problem caraher Dec 2012 #111

Yeah, my point exactly. n/t AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #116

How is this not Creative Speculation?... SidDithers Dec 2012 #120

Tell me about it. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #124

The word is "diminisher" NoOneMan Dec 2012 #134

But even that scientific view is a huge leap from... SidDithers Dec 2012 #135

Of course, its based on IPCC models NoOneMan Dec 2012 #136

I've seen at least one of his presentations. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #139

Oh, what specifically was he not factual about? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #140

I'll have to dig the PDF up at some point, when I have the time. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #142

Just being realistic, that's all. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #138

Geo-engineering only hope ErikJ Dec 2012 #151

Have you seen this paper, btw? AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #153