What would happen if all ice on Earth melted?

[Jazz Spazz]

So how many teams would the NBA be down to? Would the Jazz finally be in the upper third of the TV markets?

 

[Gameface]

Well I don't know about never but the impact would be tremendous and millions would perish. I mean think of the 2004 tsunami, that was a relatively local event compared to this and it claimed the lives of a quarter of a million people. This would be far far more catastophic.



I have little doubt of our ability to survive such an event but just surviving is setting the bar pretty low. Also I think it would take more than a "generation or two" to get back on track, obviously there is no way to know for sure, that just feels a bit optimistic to me.

Well I imagine that the ice wouldn't all melt in an afternoon. So it wouldn't be like the tsunami. People wouldn't be trapped in the cities they'd just have to leave. And yeah, the displaced populations would be a major disaster. And yeah, poor countries would be far less well equipped to handle it. And by being back on track I don't mean it would be like nothing ever happened, but that civilization wouldn't be spiraling towards destruction, we'd be putting the pieces back together and moving forward.

 

[LogGrad98]

Well I imagine that the ice wouldn't all melt in an afternoon. So it wouldn't be like the tsunami. People wouldn't be trapped in the cities they'd just have to leave. And yeah, the displaced populations would be a major disaster. And yeah, poor countries would be far less well equipped to handle it. And by being back on track I don't mean it would be like nothing ever happened, but that civilization wouldn't be spiraling towards destruction, we'd be putting the pieces back together and moving forward.

To me that is exactly the point. People act like in humanity's entire history they never dealt with natural disasters. They also act like this kind of thing would happen like a Hollywood movie and you would see millions of people screaming running away from the sudden onslaught of all the melting ice. Realistically it would be a gradual process and people would move and adapt as it was happening. And I wonder how much it would really affect the 3rd world too. How much of the 3rd world population lives in these types of areas? It strikes me that one reason less developed countries are less developed is due to a lack of natural resources, which would limit trade causing economic shortfalls. So how many metropoli in Africa are on the coast line to begin with? I really think the sheer horror of the whole thing is way overblown.

 

[VINYLONE]

Sooooo, I would still be able to ride my bike?

 

[Deleted member 848]

This is what the panic mongers want you to think.

No-- the 'panic mongers' want you to look at the stats behind how many people in the world live on these coastal areas that will be flooded.

But you're right. Half of Bangladesh & all of Calcutta flooding = 'nothing'.

 

[Deleted member 848]

This. Our economy was originally, hundreds of years ago when most of the major cities were established, based on trade routes. Trade routes that of a necessity were largely on water ways: rivers, coastlines, large lakes, etc. If those cities were wiped out cataclysmically like this it would really just redefine those routes. New cities would rise up to take their place. People would move and adapt. The interesting thing is that now those major cities aren't necessarily the most important cities any more. More and more manufacturing and distribution and food production is occurring inland as in our prosperous times coastal cities bring in more revenue from tourism than trade.

Yaa!!! UR RITE!!!

I hope your government enjoys trying to accommodate the likely influx of millions of environmental refugees.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Well I imagine that the ice wouldn't all melt in an afternoon. So it wouldn't be like the tsunami. People wouldn't be trapped in the cities they'd just have to leave. And yeah, the displaced populations would be a major disaster. And yeah, poor countries would be far less well equipped to handle it. And by being back on track I don't mean it would be like nothing ever happened, but that civilization wouldn't be spiraling towards destruction, we'd be putting the pieces back together and moving forward.

To me that is exactly the point. People act like in humanity's entire history they never dealt with natural disasters. They also act like this kind of thing would happen like a Hollywood movie and you would see millions of people screaming running away from the sudden onslaught of all the melting ice. Realistically it would be a gradual process and people would move and adapt as it was happening. And I wonder how much it would really affect the 3rd world too. How much of the 3rd world population lives in these types of areas? It strikes me that one reason less developed countries are less developed is due to a lack of natural resources, which would limit trade causing economic shortfalls. So how many metropoli in Africa are on the coast line to begin with? I really think the sheer horror of the whole thing is way overblown.

Wrong. Glaciers can crack suddenly, and displace intense amounts of water-- more than enough to cause massive tsunamis.

 

[Gameface]

Wrong. Glaciers can crack suddenly, and displace intense amounts of water-- more than enough to cause massive tsunamis.

Well, this is a hypothetical about all the polar ice caps melting completely.

Even if HUGE chunks of ice broke off, and caused massive tsunamis, the ice itself wouldn't melt for some time.

 

[RandyForRubio]

All the ice isn't gonna melt. We're fine.

 

[Deleted member 848]

LogGrad, dog. You really need to read more on this topic. Reading your posts is downright cringe-worthy.

Half of the population of Bangladesh lives less than 5 meters (16.5 feet) above sea-level. Bangladesh is home to ~160 million people.

So, that's ~80 MILLION people displaced from ONE country alone. One study says that 634 million people are at risk from sea-level rise. But you're right-- this topic is overblown by panic mongers. ****ing baffling.

 

[RandyForRubio]

No-- the 'panic mongers' want you to look at the stats behind how many people in the world live on these coastal areas that will be flooded.

But you're right. Half of Bangladesh & all of Calcutta flooding = 'nothing'.

Well proportionately, it isn't that much of the worlds population! Would obviously be terrible though.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Well, this is a hypothetical about all the polar ice caps melting completely.

Even if HUGE chunks of ice broke off, and caused massive tsunamis, the ice itself wouldn't melt for some time.

What?

Even if glaciers melt 100% uniformly, their heterogenous structure means that their weakened structure will collapse along fault lines, and cause massive water displacements. This isn't going to happen a long time from now-- this is happening right now.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Well proportionately, it isn't that much of the worlds population! Would obviously be terrible though.

How is the world going to accommodate 80 million evacuees? How is the world going to accommodate 600 million evacuees?

 

[Gameface]

What?

Even if glaciers melt 100% uniformly, their heterogenous structure means that their weakened structure will collapse along fault lines, and cause massive water displacements. This isn't going to happen a long time from now-- this is happening right now.

What?

We're talking past each other.

I'm not talking about what you're talking about. Have a nice day.

 

[Gameface]

Well proportionately, it isn't that much of the worlds population! Would obviously be terrible though.

The vast majority of the world's population lives along the coasts. Proportionally huge.

I don't know exact numbers. Maybe someone else does.

 

[franklin]

I am really not happy about Denmark disappearing though...

You mean the country that dumps more plastics into the ocean per capita? We need the oceans to rise just to negate the environmental crisis Denmark is creating. We're on the verge bros.

 

[Gameface]

On the environmental bright side, if the oceans did rise that much and it did kill millions upon hundreds of millions, and it did destroy our economy, there would be fewer people to pollute.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the extra water would reduce the acidity of the ocean as well as reduce the ratio of CO2 in solution, therefore allowing it to absorb more of our atmospheric CO2 and reduce the greenhouse effect.

Guys, I think we've found the solution we've been waiting for. Let's get that ice melted!

As the saying goes (or used to go back in the 60s): The solution to pollution is dilution.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yaa!!! UR RITE!!!

I hope your government enjoys trying to accommodate the likely influx of millions of environmental refugees.

Again. More talk as if it is a Hollywood movie. "who's that knocking on the door dear?" "is literally trillions of refugees from all of the ice in the entire world melting at once yesterday". "oh bother".

 

[LogGrad98]

How is the world going to accommodate 80 million evacuees? How is the world going to accommodate 600 million evacuees?

What?

Even if glaciers melt 100% uniformly, their heterogenous structure means that their weakened structure will collapse along fault lines, and cause massive water displacements. This isn't going to happen a long time from now-- this is happening right now.

It's happening right now? Where are the trillions of refugees from world wide coastal flooding?

 

[Deleted member 848]

It's happening right now? Where are the trillions of refugees from world wide coastal flooding?

Right-- because since environmental refugees are only in the order of thousands these days, therefore there is no way that this number will increase over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk