Random Thought...

The Mad Rapper · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:15

OK, indulge me please...

Whilst eating dinner and chatting to my GF, I began to wonder if you could make mankind, all evidence of mankind's existance, and all the pollution in the land, sea and air (including all excesses of gases/particles that ought not to be there, or ought not to be there in their current quantities) disappear then what would happen to the climate?

Would there be a very sudden and huge difference?

In the longer term what would happen to the climate?

I know this is a very bizarre thought, but it kind of made me happy because I thought of all the fish swimming in nice clean water and not getting caught in nets so they'd be happy

|Ric| · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:26

I think you would have a problem working out what a "normal" level of the gases would be?
They are at the current level because man has been for x 1000s of years, we might be able to work out what level they would have been if man had never existed but that isn't quite what you are asking.

The Mad Rapper · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:27

|Ric| said:
I think you would have a problem working out what a "normal" level of the gases would be?
They are at the current level because man has been for x 1000s of years, we might be able to work out what level they would have been if man had never existed but that isn't quite what you are asking.

The biggest difference though has been in the last 300 years, before that I believe our impact as a race would have been negligable.

|Ric| · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:29

The Mad Rapper said:
The biggest difference though has been in the last 300 years, before that I believe our impact as a race would have been negligable.

So haven't you just answered your own question?

It would be like it was 300 years ago.

A better answer:
Yes the climate would instantaneously change to what is was 300 years ago, assuming that if global warming is in fact occurring it was purely down to our actions and not something going on in the universe.

The Mad Rapper · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:32

|Ric| said:
So haven't you just answered your own question? It would be like it was 300 years ago.

But I wasn't alive then so have no idea what it was like 300 years ago

And my question hasn't been answered, I asked how drastically the climate would change if, in an instant, the situation I described was fact.

LizardKing · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:33

Take humans out and there would be a massive shake up of the whole eco system, with different life forms competing to be top of the food chain with overpopulation. As an advanced life form we have certain control of the food chain, a normal mammel doesnt and can subsiquently wipe out its own main food source without even knowing it
According to the great global warming swindel (documentry on c4 i think) we only produce a single figure % of all pollution in our atmosphere so there shouldnt be a significant difference in the climate

The Mad Rapper · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:36

LizardKing said:
Take humans out and there would be a massive shake up of the whole eco system, with different life forms competing to be top of the food chain with overpopulation.
According to the great global warming swindel (documentry on c4 i think) we only produce a single figure % of all pollution in our atmosphere so there shouldnt be a significant difference in the climate

Perhaps, but mankind is directly responsible for polluting the oceans, chopping down trees etc. which have a bigger effect on the climate then just pollution in the atmosphere.

The Mad Rapper · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:37

No-one's really having a go at telling me what I want to know. Would there, for instance, be a sudden temperature drop hailing a new Ice Age, or would there be massive and very violent storms or...see what I mean?

Slinky1989 · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:40

I think on the final ep of one of david attenboroughs series (i think it was planet earth but i'm not sure) he did an entire ep about what would happen if humans dissappeared.

I can't remember exactly what would happen but basically everything would be much better without us.

If you can find it I suggest you watch it as it's pretty interesting with the scenarios they show.

I would find it on youtube and link it but I'm at work atm

SunaseIPs · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:41

The Mad Rapper said:
OK, indulge me please...

Whilst eating dinner and chatting to my GF, I began to wonder if you could make mankind, all evidence of mankind's existance, and all the pollution in the land, sea and air (including all excesses of gases/particles that ought not to be there, or ought not to be there in their current quantities) disappear then what would happen to the climate?

Would there be a very sudden and huge difference?

In the longer term what would happen to the climate?

I know this is a very bizarre thought, but it kind of made me happy because I thought of all the fish swimming in nice clean water and not getting caught in nets so they'd be happy

I was wondering something similar if mankind vanished, how would the world be. Would trees grow on the M5? Would city centres clog up and become rivers with towering buildings as islands.

LizardKing · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:41

There isnt really a direct answer as there are far to many possibilitys to the outcome of the question your asking.
The only thing that can be offered are people opinions

Eventualy nature will reclaim everything we have down.

The Mad Rapper · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:42

LizardKing said:
There isnt really a direct answer as there are far to many possibilitys to the outcome of the question your asking.
The only thing that can be offered are people opinions

I know

|Ric| · 13 Apr 2007 at 19:45

Having re-read your question again.
It really depends what you mean by removing all evidence of man being here.
Are you saying:
a) if some external observer saw the world before man was on the planet, and now came back and we had to make it look like we were never here,e.g. dodos would be happily wondering around.

or

b) some alien arrives at our planet tomorrow and we just try and make it look like there has never been life, but they wouldn't know what was missing, e.g. the dodo.

|Ric| · 13 Apr 2007 at 20:00

Wrong thread

The Mad Rapper · 13 Apr 2007 at 20:43

|Ric| said:
Having re-read your question again.
It really depends what you mean by removing all evidence of man being here.
Are you saying:
a) if some external observer saw the world before man was on the planet, and now came back and we had to make it look like we were never here,e.g. dodos would be happily wondering around.

or

b) some alien arrives at our planet tomorrow and we just try and make it look like there has never been life, but they wouldn't know what was missing, e.g. the dodo.

I mean if you could just remove everything man has ever built. Not turn back the clock, but remove every building, roads, all other infrastructure etc.

Obviously it'd look incredibly messy, but nature would reclaim the land quickly enough I'm sure.

jcb33 · 13 Apr 2007 at 20:46

Well if you find a way to kill off only humans, the earth would revert to its natural form in around 50,000 years (I.E No sign of us left) But polution is a question, global warming is a natural stange of Earth however, so eventualy it would settle down

BennyC · 13 Apr 2007 at 21:14

Interesting thought there. Shame im too lazy to think about it

Heres a thought I had influenced by some Rainbow 6 Vegas. Why is a shotgun called a shotgun? Could a handgun not be called a shot gun? Afterall its agun that fires shots

jcb33 · 13 Apr 2007 at 21:17

Benny06 said:
Interesting thought there. Shame im too lazy to think about it

Heres a thought I had influenced by some Rainbow 6 Vegas. Why is a shotgun called a shotgun? Could a handgun not be called a shot gun? Afterall its agun that fires shots

But a shot gun, sprays shots in multiple directions at high velocity, a hand gun only fires one

The Mad Rapper · 13 Apr 2007 at 21:30

Benny06 said:
Why is a shotgun called a shotgun?

Because a shotgun discharges multiple lead balls of variable size. These balls are known as 'shot', hence 'shotgun'.

BennyC · 13 Apr 2007 at 21:42

The Mad Rapper said:
Because a shotgun discharges multiple lead balls of variable size. These balls are known as 'shot', hence 'shotgun'.

okay, and just clear up what the discharge from a standard gun called then? Is it just a round?

Dont let this stray the thread off topic!