Which might be the case very well, while my last post seems not well considered afterwards.Oh, and life is going to survive any nuclear holocaust (given that some of Earth's crust remains on its surface). I'd give good odds for some human civilization to live on too.
We just have to look to Hiroshima. Little Boy may have killed between 90k and 200k people in 1945. But today Hiroshima is a glowing city and an important industrial location with more than 1 million inhabitants. We have more than 6 billion humans on the planet...
We may have 30k bombs around the globe. But the fact that the energy of all daily thunderstorms equals ~900k Hiroshima bombs, make look our bombs just like bagatelles. And thunderstorms by far are not the worst and most powerful natural events.
By the way: the comparison of atmoic bombs and thunderstorms is not my idea. I got it from a German meterologist, who used it in almost the same context.
Well, even a crackpot like me knows that our emissions, polutions and altering of the surface can't be good for the nature on the long runMoon walker wrote:
[I do not disagree to reduce our emissions.]
This is good news. Consider yourself cyber-hugged.
But it has to be mentioned that "air pollution" has decreased in the most industrial nations within the last decades. It is not that much worse as most people think. While air pollution is a significant problem in developing countries, China and Russia as well as in other threshold countries.
Well, you should address your question to climatologists and geophysicists. It is their phraseMoonwalker wrote:
[The atmosphere by far is not an adjustable aircondition, nor will it take any care of us.]
Here I must ask.
Who are you to impose or recognize limits on Human potential with such certainty...?.
But since I use it too, I explain you why I tend to use it:
We did not contribute anything at all to past climate changes, which is more than rather obvious, because we simply did not exist in the wide past, but also did not have any industrialization in the near past of the Earth. Currently we realize that our measurements show a slight warming trend (yes, it's slight, not massive). But what can we do against it? Exactly nothing. Because we don't know what to do exactly beside reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as a potential cause. All we do is to assume and to talk shop. But there is nothing practical left to really influence the cimate like it would be an air condition.
That's what I meant earlier in this thread. We should not become megalomaniac because of our technological achievements and sciences. We can't compare little airplanes and rockets with climate change and natural processes we depend on.People used to say that flight was for birds only because God wanted it so. Now look at the computer models by which we enact the dream of interplanetary flight. Models that got us there in the first place. All of it possible because of the simple fact that its the methodology and not the partial success that matters.
As a species we have become aware of our potential at a very pivotal point in our history... And our technology is also up to a level where we can dream and realize currently impossible and seemingly improbable technologies, recently flight and, latter, space flight.. just in the 60's; and finding out, for a fact, what we suspected for so long... the world is not flat after all.
We fly and we travel into space. But we do not make weather. We can't even predict it on the long run, nor are our short term predictions right all the time.
I agree. But also, everything has its borders too. Less than ever life...We can do the impossible in our dreams and often our dreams come true if we exert our will.