blike Posted January 5, 2003 Posted January 5, 2003 CNN has an article on a new study that claims the Antarctic ice sheet may be gone in 7,000 years. Interestingly, the study notes the sheet began melting about 10,000 years ago and is still shrinking. "Stone said the study cannot prove or disprove any affect on the melting by global warming, a gradual increase in temperatures that some believe is accelerated by the burning of fossil fuels. Instead, he said, the researchers have measured what is apparently a natural cycle of ice buildup and melting that may have been going on periodically for millions of years. " If the sheet does completely melt, global sea levels could rise 16 feet, drowning islands and coasts.
Soulja Posted January 5, 2003 Posted January 5, 2003 Well i dont give the world 20 more years to live anyway. I think that we will overpopulate from cloning, and have nuclear warfare, also our environment will be destroyed, and we will just die out... I dont give us 20 more years. We're living at the end of times. So the ice sheet is probably going to be nuked sometime in the future anyway.
fafalone Posted January 6, 2003 Posted January 6, 2003 Yeah, those penguins are building weapons of mass destruction!
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2003 Posted January 7, 2003 Originally posted by Soulja Well i dont give the world 20 more years to live anyway. I think that we will overpopulate from cloning, and have nuclear warfare, also our environment will be destroyed, and we will just die out... I dont give us 20 more years. We're living at the end of times. So the ice sheet is probably going to be nuked sometime in the future anyway. I give us about 60 years tops. 40 years of The Resource Wars will take everybody's mind off the end of civilisation though.
Soulja Posted January 7, 2003 Posted January 7, 2003 Yeah i guess 60 is more probable. Well one thing's for sure, in 30 years we run out of Tungsten so were not gonna have lightbulbs. Plus i just KNOW theres gonna be a nuclear war, its inevitable. You cant just have tons of weapons so you can "not use them".
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2003 Posted January 7, 2003 I doubt we have enough nuclear weapons to do as much damage as most people predict "full blown nuclear war" would cause. In fact, if there was a nuclear war most missile would not even get in the air. There are far easier and quieter ways to kill a city than with a nuke, it's just that nobody wants to go down in history as the most evil bastard who ever lived.
fafalone Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Iraq/North Korea don't actually have nukes, so the extent of a nuclear war would be us bombing a few of their cities if they used bio/chem weapons. However, if all rational war conventions failed and we deployed our entire nuclear arsenal, we could easily end all life on the surface of the earth.
Soulja Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Iraq/North Korea don't actually have nukes, so the extent of a nuclear war would be us bombing a few of their cities if they used bio/chem weapons. However, if all rational war conventions failed and we deployed our entire nuclear arsenal, we could easily end all life on the surface of the earth. I know they dont have nukes (at least Iraq) But all the countries with nukes, you just cant have them sitting there all the time. At one point they will be used, its inevitable. And once 1 person shoots the first weapon, then every country will be firing at each other.
Soulja Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 I have a question: Is it possible to blow the world up? I mean i was thinking of it, you could kill all life on the earth, but with all the technology today, can we blow up the world?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now