Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What if all ice on Earth melted?
#1
There's been a lot of attention given to climate change in the media, over the last 20 or 30 or however many years. In particular, the average global temperature is projected to rise by roughly 2°C over the next century - which doesn't sound like a big deal, but it would be enough to melt a fair amount of the ice at the polar ice caps - enough to inundate some of the world's major cities. 

But, what if we turned this up, and imagined a situation where all of the ice at the polar ice caps melted? Well, YouTube user RealLifeLore has explored that scenario in this video: 



Basically: 
 
  • Sea levels would rise by 68.3 metres;
  • Most major cities on the West Coast of North America (e.g. Vancouver, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego) would be submerged. San Francisco would still exist, but it would become an island; 
  • One the East Coast and the Gulf Coast, New York City, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Washington DC would be underwater, as would the entirety of Florida and Delaware;
  • Europe would have it even worse. London, Berlin, Istanbul and Venice would be lost to the sea, as would all of the Netherlands, most of Denmark, and half of Belgium;
  • In Asia, several countries would cease to exist, including Bahrain, Qatar (Sorry, Sepp Blatter :( ), and Bangladesh. China would be devastated by the loss of some of its largest cities, including Beijing and Shanghai;
  • Antarctica would lose a good chunk of its land (over half, I'm guessing from the image in the video?). However, what remains would likely be habitable, without all the ice.  

There's more in the video, but I think that covers most of the main bits. Let's just hope none of this ever comes to pass (granted, at current rates, it would take 5,000 years, but it'd be much better for the people of the future if this didn't happen to them :O !)
[Image: CJ_userbar.png]

Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Member Ranks | Awards | Name Changes | Account Deletion | Personal Data Protection

(Thanks to ObsessedwithBirds for the avatar and sig!)
Quote:Nilvafefe: I swear to drink I am not god
My Awards
x1 x1 x2 x2 x5 x3 x1 x3 x6
My Items
Quote
#2
its scary to think about really, how quickly things could turn if we either start a rapid heating or cooling trend. We can slow it down or stop it and reverse it with enough time but thats if the ecosystems on earth manage to sustain themselves long enough.
[Image: 4ec9ce99-7e23-4885-9086-b80b8dc6247f.png]
[Image: 50cd8dba-af3c-43b3-be34-aa0a9c7ce5ad.png]
My Awards
x1 (2014)
My Items
Quote
#3
That's scary and sad, but if we don't stop eating animal products, it may come true.
"Strong Pokémon. Weak Pokémon. That is only the selfish perception of people. Truly skilled Trainers should try to win with the Pokémon they love best."
[Image: ObsessedwithBirds.gif]
Obsessedwithbirds [Image: 30?cb=20190128205323]
Lurker Wrote:You enforce it by constipating the phone
My Awards
x1 x1 x1 x1 (2018) x1
My Items
Silvady Dodekabashi Fiarow Pigeot Junaiper Odoridori
Quote
#4
(02-10-2019, 01:15 AM)ObsessedwithBirds Wrote: but if we don't stop eating animal products, it may come true.
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't see how that's connected. People using aerosols that slowly damage the ozone layer, yes very much so.
My Awards
x1 x1 (2017) x1
My Items
Quote
#5
(02-10-2019, 09:18 AM)BrynStevens Wrote:
(02-10-2019, 01:15 AM)ObsessedwithBirds Wrote: but if we don't stop eating animal products, it may come true.
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't see how that's connected. People using aerosols that slowly damage the ozone layer, yes very much so. 

Well, raising livestock is a very environmentally-inefficient way to obtain food. For example, according to this article, it takes 1,799 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef (and around 660 gallons to produce a 1/3-pound burger, the vast majority of which is in the beef). 

Chicken and pork aren't as bad as this: it takes 468 gallons to produce a pound of chicken, and 576 gallons to produce a pound of pork. However, goat seems to be the only meat that uses water as efficiently as most plant crops: a pound of goat only requires 127 gallons of water (versus 108 for a pound of corn, and 132 for a pound of wheat). So, yeah, there are a lot of savings to be made here. 

(Although, even if we do nothing, the mass flooding described in the video won't happen during our lifetime. We're talking 5,000 years at current rates!)
[Image: CJ_userbar.png]

Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Member Ranks | Awards | Name Changes | Account Deletion | Personal Data Protection

(Thanks to ObsessedwithBirds for the avatar and sig!)
Quote:Nilvafefe: I swear to drink I am not god
My Awards
x1 x1 x2 x2 x5 x3 x1 x3 x6
My Items
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kyng's post:
  • BrynStevens
Quote
#6
(02-10-2019, 09:18 AM)BrynStevens Wrote:
(02-10-2019, 01:15 AM)ObsessedwithBirds Wrote: but if we don't stop eating animal products, it may come true.
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't see how that's connected. People using aerosols that slowly damage the ozone layer, yes very much so.     
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

[Image: Cowspiracy-Infographic.png?format=700w]
"Strong Pokémon. Weak Pokémon. That is only the selfish perception of people. Truly skilled Trainers should try to win with the Pokémon they love best."
[Image: ObsessedwithBirds.gif]
Obsessedwithbirds [Image: 30?cb=20190128205323]
Lurker Wrote:You enforce it by constipating the phone
My Awards
x1 x1 x1 x1 (2018) x1
My Items
Silvady Dodekabashi Fiarow Pigeot Junaiper Odoridori
Quote


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)