The end game for Earth is a water world. Erosion is wearing away the high land points and filling in the low spots. Eventually the world will cool to the point that no new volcanic or tectonic action will create new land, and it will be covered by sea, with the only fresh water perhaps in frozen polar regions and clouds.
Our species needs to get much better at living on the water. That isn't an excuse to do nothing to influence climate, but one likely outcome of sea inundating previously habitable land might be innovation to contend with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by litesong
You & "4 oil cans" think alike (& others), because you're AGW deniers. 10,000 cubic kilometers per year is what I said & you did not repeat properly. AGW deniers minimalize AGW effects, because that is what they must do. Also, I did NOT say that was a worse case scenario. You did tho, because AGW deniers have their own "sigh-ants", will not deal with real science, & must..... minimalize.
|
Point to a single instance of me denying anthropogenic global warming on any forum, and I'll eat my hat. You've lumped me into a category of evildoers so you don't have to contend with what I say.
Which part of 10,000km^3 did I repeat improperly?
AGW deniers, by definition, don't minimize AGW effects; they deny they exist at all. Something which I have never done.
Now that you've got the name calling out of the way, what is your best formulated plan to deal with global warming?