well I guess technically evolution starts again with whatever life survived?the earth has had 5 major extinction events, non of them managed to wipe out all life.Įnd Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost So, for people who actually know (if there is any?) about environmental science in this thread, what exactly happens after all the humans (and presumably other) life is gone? Does the earth start cooling down again and then. I will note though that evolution never stopped and is still going on right now. The main issue, I think, is that it will be very hard for us to survive these changes.
And eventually, enough carbon would probably be sequestered to revert the environmental changes to what we see today. These species would be well suited for a climate that more closely matches that of a more ancestral Earth climate. There will probably be a broad extinction, but within a few hundred thousand years you would get a proliferation of new species to fill the void. Others, like heat-loving microbes, probably won't care. Those who are at biological dead ends for the new climate will be annihilated. Most species will go through a bottleneck event where a few resistant organisms are selected for over the course of the next few hundred-thousands of years. well I guess technically evolution starts again with whatever life survived?As you suggest, not all life would die. Your position is "We can't hurt muh sacred GDP because it might get hot! We don't know!!!! MUH GDP!!!!" The fact that you don't read the literature on the subject and then ask for proof when there is mountain ranges worth of studies, papers, and scientific research including a global UN Panel of scientists working on this is kind of further evidence of how much of total fraud your schtick tends to be. The author's predictive methodology can be found both in his book, the any book on climatology not produced by Exxon, and in any science book about chemistry and atmospheric patterns. If I see an astroid heading for Earth and the scientists agree, its gunna hit, I am certain that I better do something about the giant space rock. Mostly to say profoundly dumb things in defense of whatever is the current status quo. If there is none then they should at least have a disclaimer that says their predictions should only be interpreted as speculation.Right, so despite your pretensious talk about "math and metrics" you ignore it at your own conveniance. Lol? I was just asking for the author's predictive methodology. Okay but your making my argument which is that we should avoid arbitrary numbers. Forcing the largest party to sacrifice its principles in order to appease a third rate party. The future is unpredictable in principle.Īctually my FPTP argument is based on the fact that getting rid of it would give an unjustifiable amount of power to the 3rd largest party. Except it wouldn't matter if all the scientists in the world wrote essays about this, economic predictions aren't based on science.