'Running out of oil' is the wrong term as we will never RUN out of oil, 'Peak oil' Is a much better term as this is when production starts to decline.

Regarding the oil reserves. These are sketchy at best as countries don't have to and do not release reserve data. The reserves that countries do release are often well overstated especially in OPEC where there is a reserve based quota system in place encouraging overexaduration of reserves.

Regarding climate change. It's no just the marginal regions that will be affected. Many existing temporate zones will experience much more wilder weather with stronger storms, hotter/colder seasons, more/less rain etc. One of the biggest problems would be if the monsoon rains failed in asia like they did in the Sahel due to human generated pollution. Without them 2 billion people would be without water.

Problem is, demand for oil is increasing, while supplies are decreasing. When we can't meet demand, there will be an ever increasing fuel gap where the oil we need will be more and more than the amount we can supply.

The question we have to ask is - will the total amount of emissions we emit before we say "fuck it, oil just isn't economical anymore" be enough to damage the climate significantly?

Now before anyone says, "well obviously, it's already done harm," we have to determine how much of the change so far is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels.

We also have the issue that we might not be able to stop the process. Too many people are committed to burn oil till it doesn't pay.

Really, we have to evaluate what effect the fuels burnt will have on the environment up until people stop using them.

-deus-

I don't see how you find it helpful. I mean I read what everyone said and I still think it should be "global warming will work itself out"

Either way, will methane be the next big problem :p What about all the people that will be like "oh shit no power, no heater to use...best chop those trees down to burn like there's no tomorrow"

And yeah I found it funny that from the original post it went from global warming to me saying people will be contributing to global warming to keep themselves warm :D

I hardly consider an ice age for northern Europe and the US caused by a fresh water disrupting the warm Atlantic waters flowing north from the equators, which creates a temperature moderating effect for said land masses, which will affect farming and quality of life in the northern US states, Canada, Great Britian and all of northern Europe resulting in mass starvation from famine and an eventual mass exodus out of said affected parts reducing food supplies and quality of life in other places to the south.. as being helpful.

How could a sea level rise and increased extinction be helpful?

That is a theory as to what might happen when the poles melt, not fact.

REAL: its helpful because the earth has far too many species/organisms (mainly human) using up far too many resources. When these organisms are gone, or atleast decreased, the earth will finally gain an edge.

^^ Go smoke some more weed, kid.

REAL: its helpful because the earth has far too many species/organisms (mainly human) using up far too many resources. When these organisms are gone, or atleast decreased, the earth will finally gain an edge.

Then suicide is helpful too. Please go help the earth.

It will be helpful in some ways to some people, i.e. increased agricultral diversity in colder climates, probable reduction in cold related illnesses in the elderly, reduced fuel bills, etc... however the disruption caused by climate change will most likely have an overall negative economic impact on the majority of countries. As Trousersnake has pointed out, if the clathrate deposits under the Siberian and Alaskan permafrost start to go 'pop', then you really are in trouble.

Now, dont get me wrong I know the earth is warming but I dont feel that it will be a serious threat to humans. Sure some of the regions of the world that are borderline inhabitable already (due to heat) will be come uninhabitable but once the ice at the poles melt we will most likely have new land masses.

You will have one new land mass, owned (disputedly) by several different nations, in the middle of nowhere. And by the time it becomes freely available how much land mass will you have globally lost.

As Trousersnake has pointed out, if the clathrate deposits under the Siberian and Alaskan permafrost start to go 'pop', then you really are in trouble.


Not to mention frozen methane deposits in the Ocean. Vicious cycle/ mass extinction.

Global warming or not, life on Earth will adapt. Our civilisation will be in deep trouble though.

A question that seems relevant to me is whether or not we should nessecarily give a fuck about climate change/global warming.

Let's face it, there are countries which don't nessecarily need to care about the problems of tomorrow - because they already have contingencies in place.

Rather than people like the OP stressing their little head over it, perhaps it would simply be easier to just focus on what to do if natural disasters occur in your area.

Chances are, nothing dramatic is going to happen until we have at least a dozen or so more cataclysms.

Do what you can do, not what you think you 'might be able' to do.

Unfortunately no country worth spit exists in an economic bubble. That's why the OP refers to the human race as opposed to individual nations.

And what countries? What contingencies?

British contingencies? Large parts of the country currently look like Bangladesh, so you can't be referring to the UK, unless your idea of contingency involves a family sized inflatable dinghy.

REAL: its helpful because the earth has far too many species/organisms (mainly human) using up far too many resources. When these organisms are gone, or atleast decreased, the earth will finally gain an edge.

When YOU are gone, the earth will finally gain an edge, so to speak.

organization have the potential to adapt much more quickly than organism, except single-celled stuff, it owns all.
That is a theory as to what might happen when the poles melt, not fact.

REAL: its helpful because the earth has far too many species/organisms (mainly human) using up far too many resources. When these organisms are gone, or atleast decreased, the earth will finally gain an edge.
large decreases in land mass generally aren't too great for us land-dwellers, but fish populations might increase (or the change in salinity might kill them).
I wasn't aware we were fighting the earth. Organisms produce/maintain all the important resources. Of course humans are worthless, but the rest of life should be protected.

large decreases in land mass generally aren't too great for us land-dwellers, but fish populations might increase

But that's a good thing!

I am fish.

Then suicide is helpful too. Please go help the earth.

ahahahah

Purely my opinions.



It depends not on how the world changes but how we will cope with it.
The economy will be fucked, but thats only if we do things exactly as we are now.
We could adapt building new farms that will be able to convert in many years to accomidate differernt produce. Also new wave and hydroelectric stations can be built. We could change to make our selves self sufficient: look at norway. We would take a more communist stance, but it isn't.
Each village could have a community farm. They pay the farmer and crew to work and they get a share of produce.
People would live in smaller village communties with the great communcations technolgy; reducing travel.
Could people please point out problems with this system, caus im sure there's a major one that iv'e missed.

You will have one new land mass, owned (disputedly) by several different nations, in the middle of nowhere. And by the time it becomes freely available how much land mass will you have globally lost.

Notice how Russia, Dennmark and Canada are already laying claim to the north pole.

Were already seeing an oil war, i honestly believe that within 15 years we will see food riots, wars over water and our civizilation will come to its knees.

We do have technology though, even with horror food, water and oil shortages it would be possible to have a small amount of people surviving, but it wont be pretty.

Global warming or not, life on Earth will adapt..

Right. Like the polar bears, seals and walruses that are drowning NOW because their habitat is melting.

Right. Like the polar bears, seals and walruses that are drowning NOW because their habitat is melting.

Life on earth refers to things living on this planet, and although your arctic examples are part of this, their extinction is trivial. Billions of species have evolved and died out since life began, but life as a whole goes on. Regardless of how intensely the globe warms from it's present state, organisms will continue to live, as they have done at extreme times in the past, such as the Cryogenian period.

It's not that hard to live without electricity or fossil fuels. You just REALLY won't like it. Horde books and non-electronic things to pass onto future generations.

Ok, imagine the billions of people that live in cities right lose thier electricity, running water, and supply lines since they're all heavily dependent and made possible on the scale that we enjoy because of oil.

This is worse than being stranded on a desert island or lost up in the mountains, because not only do you have millions of other people to compete with whatever meager resources you can gather that are left in the city, but the environment that you live in now is engineered specifically against what you'll be needing.

You can't grow food when the world you live in is paved over for miles in every direction and you'd need some fucking oil to bust up the asphault and concrete and expose the soil in the hopes that months from now you'll have something of worth to harvest. So it's like, you're uber-fucked. If you're in the cities as the problems really start to come around then you're probably dead. If you do manage to survive for any length of time in the city, then it means you were prepared and had some provisions hoarded up (and even those run out eventually, meaning sooner or later you'll need agriculture capabilities), then you'll likely be a target for resources by those that are left.

I'm not seeing this situation playing out well for city dwellers, seeing as all the resources used in our cities comes from great distances outside of them. You'd be better off grabbing a bug out bag & learning some survival skills in advance and head for the woods rather than staying in populated suburban areas that (with the exception of tools and what little processed foodstuffs that are left, which would be looted fast) have nothing you'll be needing.

I'm not seeing this situation playing out well for city dwellers, seeing as all the resources used in our cities comes from great distances outside of them. You'd be better off grabbing a bug out bag & learning some survival skills in advance and head for the woods rather than staying in populated suburban areas that (with the exception of tools and what little processed foodstuffs that are left, which would be looted fast) have nothing you'll be needing.

Yep, and what sucks is that the flooding into the suburbs will cause just as much chaos as the main cities have, and the flood into rural areas will turn them into suburbs.

The worst part is rural land owners don't want any of us there, and there's so many of us, that just disappearing into the woods won't be the option like it is now. You WILL meet people, and animal populations will be decimated.

The only way to avoid people is to move into hostile climates, a bad idea, or move far, far out into the fields of CO or WY. From that point on, it's Mad Max.

The majority of the human race is either going to drown, dry up or starve, with a minor portion dieing out due to the ice age it will cause.

Mother natures recycling system in action, the history books 2000 years from now will be an interesting read, shame I wont be around.

Who knows...

In my opinion, the world takes care of it self, by any means necessary, so I don't doubt something bad will happen to the human race.

global warming probably wont be a major threat. think of the day after tomorrow except more realistic. the weather will be more erratic for maybe a couple of years. then it will be calm, normal.

In my opinion, the world takes care of it self, by any means necessary, so I don't doubt something bad will happen to the human race.
qft

The world "taking care of itself" does not mean that there isn't anything bad in store for humans.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Nature deals with population issues and overconsumption by having the overconsuming little biuggars die in droves until an equilibrium between the species and the environment is established, assuming there is one. When it comes to climate shifts, there might not be an equilibrium for several species in any numbers, resulting in extinction.

The thing is, we have absolutely no idea what we could be causing by burning fossil fuels, and through our general impact on the planet. Chances are though, messing up the equilibrium which has allowed humanity to have become successful so far...... probably isn't going to do us any huge favours. Sure, the previous ice age allowed mankind to wander the continents and find new interesting places to live... but I don't think millions of people in modern cities would fare so well (see New Orleans, etc etc).

Perhaps we can't stop global warming, but our attitude should be important as a race.... as we don't really have any other choice. Considering how advanced some countries in the world are, they should be considering the impact that human success has caused, and fixing it, not just ignorin' the problem and hoping everything will miraculously turn out ok, or leave another generation to deal with it.

We are running out of the current fuels we're using, but it seems the shift to more renewable and experimental forms of energy can only be made when the economics n money shift. At the moment, oil runs the world pretty much, and there's some lovely people who like keepin' it that way to keep those wallets poppin' :p

But as you say... it's tricky for half the world to care so much about future problems when it's hard as hell to even survive in the present...

I agree with all your points.