COMMENTS:
exponential increase, reaching infinity. also look at ballot #93087
by LCD on Tue Apr 25, 06 10:40am
[+]
It's already inhabitable, as it has sustained life for many many years now ;-)
^We won't have crap to burn forever, so I wouldn't say it's going to continue that rate of growth forever.
By the time China becomes a 2 car per family economy, we'll be flying space pods here in the US and Europe, fueled by nuclear fusion nonetheless.
The thing that strikes me as interesting is you can distinctly see the energy crisis of the early 70s and early 80s as the blips where emissions flatlined for a couple of years.
Back to the question though... Uninhabitable? Never. Even in the most extreme hypothetical scenarios the Earth will be able to support SOME humans.
The question is how many if there are major global climate shifts...
Also, you should've included a graph showing methane and sulfur compound emissions.
Those actually have just as much of a substantial impact on the atmosphere. Methane concentrations have increased four fold (if memory serves me correctly) and is much more efficient at trapping heat than CO2.
But anyway, I get where you're coming from.
Same time as always: by the next election.
About nine and a half years ago? That's about when my lungs decided to quit working.
Temperature does not go up proportionally with conc. of CO2, otherwise we'd already be screwed. Heat trapped has a LOGARITHMIC dependence on greenhouse concentration.
And the Kool-Aid drinkers will be denying it right up until the end.
Cath: so the apocalypse is nigh! Fear and repent sinners for your doom is at hand!
Now, will we be freezing to death or burning to death? Because the enviromentalist movement seems to change their rapture story fairly often.
Define uninhabitable. We humans are pretty smart and can "live" in some pretty harsh conditions (The Saharra, Antartica, Space, etc.). The real question is A) How many of us will survive and B) what type of quality of life will we have.
|
