How far are we from colonizing off Earth?

[jonesy]

No, I haven't read those. Sounds like she's outlining almost a "Waterworld" kind of scenario.

Heh. I totally giggled at the thought of someone calling him a 'she'. Probably a bit too much since I actually called the Dragonlance author Weis a 'he' once.

I'm not sure that melting all the ice caps would drown everyone. I mean, there's a lot of ice in the ice caps....but to cover all the land on this planet? Though, as pointed out by others, a big proportion of the population lives along the coasts, so people *would* be affected.

Yeah, but it's just one of the ways to get the motivation for the mission. It doesn't quite go all the way. He wrote a book called Antarctica, which I haven't read, but which probably deals with the issue (considering the title, and it being in the same universe as the Mars books).

Edit: I'm trying to find what the link between the trilogy and Antarctica is, but I can't seem to find anything. The blurb says "shares many themes", which doesn't really say anything. Hmm.

The trilogy is great because it doesn't just deal with the tech. It focuses on the political aspect of colonization, and the actual living-on-a-hostile-world angle.

 

[Banshee16]

Heh. I totally giggled at the thought of someone calling him a 'she'. Probably a bit too much since I actually called the Dragonlance author Weis a 'he' once.

I've made the same mistake myself

Part of the problem with some unisex names these days is you can't even tell them apart by spelling. You could have Tracey, Tracy, Tracie.......and conceivably any of those spellings could be used for a man or woman.

And there are the others like Morgan, Pat, Eve (up here in Canada, it's perfectly possible to have a male "Yves", which can sound the same as Eve if you're getting the name over the phone), Pascal, Jody....

Banshee

 

[Pbartender]

I'm not sure that melting all the ice caps would drown everyone. I mean, there's a lot of ice in the ice caps....but to cover all the land on this planet?

For the record, no. It's not nearly enough to cover all the land on the planet. If all of the Antarctic ice (roughly 90% of all the ice on the planet) melted, sea levels would rise by about 60 meters (~200 feet).

In fact, it would only affect a relatively small percentage of land. Although you are correct... as all the affected land is coastal, quite a bit of the world's population would be dislocated.

This website has a set of Java applets that let you play around with changes in sea level. There's a world map, and also maps for several regions, like Europe, the East and West Coasts of the U.S. and Southeast Asia.

Here's what the world would look like flooded by all its ice:

 

[TanisFrey]

Use a spaceship from a country that can't or won't retaliate into space to create you own space-nation and you're safe from everyone? Supposing there was such a country with its own space-program I doubt it would be quite that space-easy.

In legal terms your would be safe. Until someone decides to ignore the treaty or the UN stepped in.

 

[Banshee16]

For the record, no. It's not nearly enough to cover all the land on the planet. If all of the Antarctic ice (roughly 90% of all the ice on the planet) melted, sea levels would rise by about 60 meters (~200 feet).

In fact, it would only affect a relatively small percentage of land. Although you are correct... as all the affected land is coastal, quite a bit of the world's population would be dislocated.

This website has a set of Java applets that let you play around with changes in sea level. There's a world map, and also maps for several regions, like Europe, the East and West Coasts of the U.S. and Southeast Asia.

Here's what the world would look like flooded by all its ice:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd read that. I know the media and Hollywood like doom and gloom scenarios, as it does sell. But I'd read that melting all the ice on the planet would never result in mainland getting flooded. Coastal areas, yes.....but I don't think people living in Colorado, Utah, Calgary, or Mexico City have to worry, for instance.

Now, what having all those ice caps melt could have disastrous longterm effects to availability of fresh water etc. Much of the water we drink (at least in my area of the country) comes, at its source, from glaciers etc. As those melt and disappear, there's going to be less water making its way down the rivers to the areas where people live etc.

I was reading a study on the topic, which was talking about the idea that not nearly as much water comes from rain filling up lakes and rivers as we'd like to think. Meanwhile, many industrial processes use up significant volumes of available fresh water...for mining, separating oil from the tar sands, etc.

In any case, I don't want to go too far down that avenue of discussion. And I'm always hesitant around here to give a definitive answer or statement on the boards, as there are plenty of people who post here who have specialized in particular topics. I'd like to consider myself fairly well read.....but I'm not a specialist in these fields.

I'm just having fun with this particular discussion. Everyone's being pretty genial about it.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

For the record, no. It's not nearly enough to cover all the land on the planet. If all of the Antarctic ice (roughly 90% of all the ice on the planet) melted, sea levels would rise by about 60 meters (~200 feet).

In fact, it would only affect a relatively small percentage of land. Although you are correct... as all the affected land is coastal, quite a bit of the world's population would be dislocated.

This website has a set of Java applets that let you play around with changes in sea level. There's a world map, and also maps for several regions, like Europe, the East and West Coasts of the U.S. and Southeast Asia.

Here's what the world would look like flooded by all its ice:

Cool link! Looks like Montreal might get rather wet....but it's difficult to tell, because the map only shows Canada in the version that shows the whole world. Looks like the St. Lawrence would get wider.....so I'm assuming Montreal, Kingston, Vancouver, and maybe even Toronto might have problems. Toronto's 77m above sea level. Would an increase to the sea level of 80 m result in major rivers like the St. Lawrence running their banks, and rising (as well as the great lakes)? Or would it have "no" effect that far in?

Of course, even if flooding was nowhere near on Waterworld scales, you'd still be left with significant human populations being forced to move....which can cause enough problems on its own....to say nothing of the environmental impact on coastal wildlife etc.

Banshee

 

[jonesy]

This website has a set of Java applets that let you play around with changes in sea level.

Huh. Spain stays almost completely dry right up to 400 meters. That surprises me a lot. I never realized it was that high. If there's a waterapocalypse I'm moving there. And if the sea keeps rising you just follow the mountains to the Alps.

 

[Umbran]

Coastal areas, yes.....but I don't think people living in Colorado, Utah, Calgary, or Mexico City have to worry, for instance.

Well, they don't have to worry directly about the water itself. But there's climate change associated with that. And, when NYC, London, Hong Kong, and several other major metropolitan/financial centers take the swim, the world economy collapses. And every single port in the world is inundated - so no more petroleum shipments...

It's all interconnected.

Now, what having all those ice caps melt could have disastrous longterm effects to availability of fresh water etc. Much of the water we drink (at least in my area of the country) comes, at its source, from glaciers etc. As those melt and disappear, there's going to be less water making its way down the rivers to the areas where people live etc.

Even places not fed by glaciers will likely have weather-pattern changes that alter rainfall, and thus availability of fresh water.

Meanwhile, many industrial processes use up significant volumes of available fresh water...for mining, separating oil from the tar sands, etc.

That's okay, if the water rises that much, those processes will stop.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Spain stays almost completely dry right up to 400 meters...

But not on the plains...that's where most of the rain falls...

 

[Banshee16]

Well, they don't have to worry directly about the water itself. But there's climate change associated with that. And, when NYC, London, Hong Kong, and several other major metropolitan/financial centers take the swim, the world economy collapses. And every single port in the world is inundated - so no more petroleum shipments...

It's all interconnected.

Yes, I know I think I meant more that it's not like those places would be underwater. The environmental effects would be catastrophic (for current life forms).

To be clear....life has existed on earth in times when water levels were much higher than they are now........*and* much lower. But, on geological terms, the current moment in time is like nanoseconds in the life of the earth...and the life forms that currently exist are obviously not adapted to the conditions that we'd see with such a rise in sea levels.

Banshee