Don't worry. This news comes about every year. Nothing happens.
Now I've probably jinxed it.
[QUOTE=ironman17;44793031]Well, start by making more forests, then make the trees sentient so that no-one could cut them down without committing murder, and invent the ents so that the forests are protected from the swine who try to cut them down anyways.[/QUOTE]
And then people show up dead instead of trees cut
But actually yes.
It seems like theres less and less trees everywhere I go. It's good, in a way, because less wildlife that could eat your face, but at the same time, extremely bad for every living thing, including us.
And this is me saying it, someone who actually likes cities.
[QUOTE=ironman17;44792186]Well, there go the lowlands and coastlines. 4ft's kind of a lot if you think about it, it reaches above the average waistline.[/QUOTE]Muther fucker.....New Orleans is going to be the new Atlantis at this rate. Wonder if we'll see mermaids before long.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Sealand-sky.jpg[/t]
Sealand knows no fear!
Humans didn't cause this, we just made it happen faster
[QUOTE=meppers;44793464]Humans didn't cause this, we just made it happen faster[/QUOTE]
we stopped the ice buildup at the back end of a glacier dooming it to die
[QUOTE=meppers;44793464]Humans didn't cause this, we just made it happen faster[/QUOTE]
"I didn't murder him, judge! I merely accelerated his inevitable demise!"
[QUOTE=Cairn Trenor;44793318]Don't worry. This news comes about every year. Nothing happens.
Now I've probably jinxed it.[/QUOTE]
Just because you aren't up to your waist in water already doesn't mean "nothing happened". That kind of attitude is [I]why[/I] it's happening. Yet somewhere there's a scientist sitting in a room looking at data and thinking "this is really fucking bad".
[QUOTE=ironman17;44792991]I can kinda see the logic, since most lifeforms have a high water content anyways. Thirsty trees drink deep and breathe deep, locking up the water and the carbon in its woodsieness. So planting more trees could be a good form of damage control, laying down large forests to collectively soak up what we don't need.
We can still use fossil fuels, just so long as the emissions stay in line with the growing of trees and lock up the excess water and CO2 in trunk and branch, leaf and bark, fruit and nut. Kinda wish we had some sort of Woodsie Lord to make it happen, I imagine the loggers in the Amazon would get a lot more shit if the trees they were cutting down were actually sentient. But whether to let the world force them to abandon the "genocide", or to give the trees the means to fight back?
If some crazed super-scientist could make trees into tree-people, or at least grow ents to protect the forests, I would give them so much money to do that, since the trees are important and need to be protected, and what better way to protect the trees than with giant terrifying tree-people that stomped and crushed and scared away the manfools, whilst tending to the trees like a kindly grandfather/shepherd? If no-one else is going to protect the trees, you might as well make giant tree-herds to make the lumberjacks go home and be family men.[/QUOTE]
I was agreeing with you until the middle part jumped off the deep end.
[QUOTE=OvB;44793596]"I didn't murder him, judge! I merely accelerated his inevitable demise!"[/QUOTE]
aka proximate cause
yer goin' to th' big house
[QUOTE=Cairn Trenor;44793318]Don't worry. This news comes about every year. Nothing happens.
Now I've probably jinxed it.[/QUOTE]
It only seems like nothing happens because the climate change we're talking about takes place over a (relatively) long time. Even the article itself is talking in centuries which, while long by the standard of a human lifespan, is fairly short on a global timespan. That said, despite our many screwups I'm still optimistic about us and our future even though there are going to be hardships ahead; say what you will about the human race but we're resourceful sonsofbitches when we need to be.
Now then, if only politicians and the others who can really effect change would stop their shitflinging for a little bit, maybe we could get things done and start [I]really[/I] working on this issue. Still waiting on nuclear power, folks in Washington.
[QUOTE=Cairn Trenor;44793318]Don't worry. This news comes about every year. Nothing happens.
[B]Now I've probably jinxed it.[/B][/QUOTE]
You inconsiderate jerk now we are all gonna die
[QUOTE=ironman17;44792991]I can kinda see the logic, since most lifeforms have a high water content anyways. Thirsty trees drink deep and breathe deep, locking up the water and the carbon in its woodsieness. So planting more trees could be a good form of damage control, laying down large forests to collectively soak up what we don't need.
We can still use fossil fuels, just so long as the emissions stay in line with the growing of trees and lock up the excess water and CO2 in trunk and branch, leaf and bark, fruit and nut. Kinda wish we had some sort of Woodsie Lord to make it happen, I imagine the loggers in the Amazon would get a lot more shit if the trees they were cutting down were actually sentient. But whether to let the world force them to abandon the "genocide", or to give the trees the means to fight back?
If some crazed super-scientist could make trees into tree-people, or at least grow ents to protect the forests, I would give them so much money to do that, since the trees are important and need to be protected, and what better way to protect the trees than with giant terrifying tree-people that stomped and crushed and scared away the manfools, whilst tending to the trees like a kindly grandfather/shepherd? If no-one else is going to protect the trees, you might as well make giant tree-herds to make the lumberjacks go home and be family men.[/QUOTE]
Not to sound like a dick, but you have more long-winded, borderline insane streams of consciousness than any other poster. Have you considered just putting it in a journal?
I wouldn't be as worried as I am about the ice caps melting, but theres only one place I can go if my place which is at sea level floods.
Back to my mothers :(
[QUOTE=ironman17;44792991]But whether to let the world force them to abandon the "genocide", or to give the trees the means to fight back?[/QUOTE]
This be the place where my sides split.
"all the ancient oaks of the amazon have been boobie-trapped with explosives, bringing an end to the unrelenting deforestation, and giving way to a massive effort of disarming as more and more trees fall victim to animals triggering the dormant munitions"
[QUOTE=Riller;44792142]I live on top of a valley that goes down to the ocean. If the sea level rises, my house will become a beach-side villa. I say melt it all![/QUOTE]
Sea access woo
I thought we only have to start worrying about sea levels once the glaciers start melting and not the polar ice, still we will probably lose a lot of species living in that cold
Can't we just launch water into space? or put some on mars? The earth does not need this much water.. probably..
Okay there are 2 options we can do to avoid flooding the world.
1. Drink all the water.
2. Drill a big ass hole into the earth, drain the water, and by the time the West Antarctic is gone, we should have our water back.
This is pretty good for dynamic sea level rise indication
[url]http://flood.firetree.net/[/url]
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;44793412]And then people show up dead instead of trees cut
But actually yes.
It seems like theres less and less trees everywhere I go. It's good, in a way, because l[B]ess wildlife that could eat your face[/B], but at the same time, extremely bad for every living thing, including us.
And this is me saying it, someone who actually likes cities.[/QUOTE]
Errr... Less trees means more light for forest floor plants like grasses and what not. More grasses means more herbivores (Like deer), more herbivores means more predators whom eat said herbivores. (More food = increased population capacity for things that may eat your face.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
