What would happen in to a Earth where the oceans dried up?
>>44119836
We'd all suffocate.
It would have to be a lot hotter, and it would probably just be constant rain nonstop, assuming the oceans have just evaporated and are in a constant state of evaporation.
Alternatively you could imagine another ice age.
In this case oceans would be more shallow, coastline will be where once sea was. At least near the equator..
>>44119836
About 2 billion people would starve in the near-term, and probably that many more would die from the long-term economic effects of cheap oceanic trade being ended.
A few days ago somebody posted an idea where a crack opened up and drained the oceans into a previously unknown fissure. Maybe a non-apocalypse meteor hit the planet and temporarily cracked it open.
Hey, /tg/, what would happen if a Manhattan-sized asteroid hit the south pole?
its literally how all life on earth will go extinct when in about 1.2 billion years the oceans evaporate
>>44120312
We'd probably all die.
>>44120312
We would all diebecause the Necron tombs underneath the ice would be reactivated
>>44119836
We would be very, very dead. Slowly, and painfully, dead.
>>44119836
It would rain a fuckload everywhere shortly afterwards.
>>44119836
no oceans mean no rain
no rain means no plants
no plants mean no animals (us)
also long term breakdown of the water-carbon cycle, CO2 builds up in the atmosphere for a full greenhouse effect to sterilize the planet.
>>44120684
yeah but then we get snow made of lead like Venus, and that's metal as fuck.
>>44120869
But lead is not shiny and chrome
>>44119836
lots of salt
>>44119836
>dried up?
where to?
>>44119836
"Drain the Ocean" would become far less popular.
>>44120025
>We'd all suffocate.
Actually a good point.
I'm not sure which would be a more serious concern, the sudden loss of the planet's ability to process large amounts of CO2, or the fact that most populated areas would find themselves at much lower air pressures if the oceans simply vanished.
>>44120027
That would be nice. Would the rain blot out the sun?
>>44119836
Flopping about in the rain. Because conservation of matter is still a thing, the water cycle is still a thing, and OBVIOUSLY IF I'M STILL ALIVE, THAT MEANS THERE IS STILL AN ATMOSPHERE KEEPING WATER VAPOR ON THE PLANET.
*Gasps*, Ahem. Enough yelling. I had a conversation with my little brother yesterday about the rather extreme consequences of "A button that turns off gravity", namely the destruction of the universe kind of extreme.
>>44122907
>I had a conversation with my little brother yesterday about the rather extreme consequences of "A button that turns off gravity", namely the destruction of the universe kind of extreme.
Your little brother is obviously a member of the Q continuum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xdbPhnfFEI
>>44119836
All I know is that the seabeds would be unimaginably hot, because the air pressure would cause the temperature to rise.
So at the bottom of a sea trench you'd be pushing 90 degrees Celsius.
At least, that's what my barely coherent memory of 10th grade science tells me.
>>44122986
>Your little brother is obviously a member of the Q Continuum.
This wouldn't surprise me. While he's clinically insane and has a piss-poor understanding of physics, the kid has the "Visualizing entire complex machines in his head" kind of intelligence.
>>44122890
No idea. I just know even if all the oceans evaporated, the water wouldn't actually leave the planet or magically disappear. It would have to go somewhere.
So assuming it got hot enough for the oceans to evaporate, but not so hot that you can't survive, it would just be an arid world with constant heavy rains and huge storms that dump a ton of water that quickly evaporates.
>>44123337
that reminds me of an idea for a towering city i came up with back in high school
basically the ground below it was raging hot and water would evaporate before it even touched. This caused a layer of steam that the city would harness for power. the lower class lived down in the steam belt while the rich lived above in temp controlled comfort.
Pretty sure Randal Munroe's done some theory similar to this. I'm too tired to look it up though.
>>44120536I have the Pariah gene, will I be spared?
>>44125253
Yes because that's just a bit of necron blood in ya
>>44123107
Insanity isn't a clinical term
How the fuck can the oceans dry up?
Where the fuck did all that water go? Is the earth's atmosphere missing? Is the earth being roasted alive by the sun? What the fuck is going on?
>>44119836
Ever seen Mars? Like that, but with more atmosphere.
>>44126604
Humanity continued to increase it's heat production by 2% per year. Unfortunately, using energy makes heat. The only means the earth has of radiating heat is thermal emission, and it sucks.
So around 2420, the oceans evaporated. The waste heat of just human power use was sufficient to raise the global temperature to that point.
What they used to get to that point has been lost in time...
There is no rain because I bought all the water and spaced it. Good luck drinking now faggots.honk
>>44126604
there is a critical temperature point at which water vapor starts acting like a greenhouse gas
once you hit that point its fairly obvious how all the oceans would dry up in a short amount of time
>>44126864It's fine, combusting plasma produces water vapour. All I have to do is-
Rolled 3, 3 = 6 (2d6)
dice+2d6
>>44126604
Well, a few billion years from now, due to the fact the Sun will gradually expand and increase its power output, the oceans will start evaporating at a much greater rate. The water molecules will be carried high into the air where they can be broken down by high energy electromagnetic and cosmic rays into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen will then gently float up out of the atmosphere and be blown away in the solar wind so that eventually all the water on Earth disappears off into space, as happened to Mars.
You may also be interested to know that the loss of the oceans will mean no water to lubricate tectonic activity so plate tectonics will shut down. This will stop the carbon cycle as carbonated rocks will no longer be subducted and fresh rocks such as olivine that would react with the carbon will no longer be exposed - the death of all the plants and phytoplankton earlier also helped. This, along with all the water vapour that hasn't yet broken down, will leave the Earth baked and sweltering for the last billion years or so in which life can sustain itself only as microorganisms. The Earth's cooling core will also at this point probably no longer sustain a magnetic field, so the solar wind will start eating away at the atmosphere. The ozone layer will disappear at this point, so the land will be bathed in cleansing ultraviolet light leaving only caves, chasms and the underside of rocks as refuges for microbes. Soon, even these last bastions will wither and die and the Earth will be a barren rock for another billion or so years, until the Sun expands into a red giant with a radius a bit larger than Mars' orbit and Earth will become a rapidly fading cooler splodge on the Sun's photosphere.
>>44119836
Weather would get AWFUL.
Oceans exert a powerful stabilizing force on the weather by acting as heat sinks, absorbing large amounts of heat during the day and releasing it overnight. This dramatically smooths the air temperature transition between day and night, which in turn helps to turn large masses of hot and cold air meeting into large masses of warm and cool air instead. This, ultimately, means that a storm's strength is largely dependant on the size of the cell and sustained conditions, which is much easier to predict, while in drier inland areas small cells can quickly explode into very violent storms if moment-to-moment conditions allow. There's a reason why tornados don't often happen on the coasts.
This temperature smoothing effect also stabilizes the water cycle, eases pressure on plant life, and normalizes several forms of erosion, such as by the heat expansion/contraction or heavy condensation experienced when a very warm environment abruptly becomes very cool.
Additionally, the oceans pull a massive amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere while putting a massive amount of O2 back in, and seafood supports almost a third of Earth's population.
So, if the oceans all vanished, humanity would starve and suffocate, storms would ravage the earth, and the remaining life would be wiped out by the plague of volcanoes and earthquakes that result from untold trillions of tonnes of weight being abruptly removed from several tectonic plates.
Eventually the ash would settle and Earth would look a lot like Mars.
>>44120312
What? Is the Earth hollow in this scenario?
>>44126830
Do you have any idea how much power that would require?
>>44126830
Is this Hotel?
>>44119836
Wasn't Mad Max's backstory involve a nuclear war following a massive oil crisis instead of the oceans drying up which is retarded.
>>44120312
>A few days ago somebody posted an idea where a crack opened up and drained the oceans into a previously unknown fissure.
And that fissure would lead to... where exactly?
>Hey, /tg/, what would happen if a Manhattan-sized asteroid hit the south pole?
Massive tidal waves would hit and probably devastate the coastline of southern hemisphere dozens of miles deep into the mainland. Massive cloud of ash, dust and water vapor would probably start fucking up the weather and climate pretty bad. Possibly, ocean levels might temporarily raise. It would be unpleasant all the way around.
Venus. It lost its H2O to outer space.
>>44130750
That's a result of it not having a geomagnetic field, not simply its temperature.
>>44130026
I'm pretty sure hitting Antarctica wouldn't generate significant tidal waves, though if the asteroid was big enough a lot of ice could be lost, contributing to sea level rise. Effects would likely depend strongly on whether it hit rock or thick ice.
>>44123002
No, adiabatic heating would not have a long term effect. The oceans aren't deep enough for that effect to be noticeable anyway.
>>44129762
10^16 watts. Or if 100% of the earth's surface was covered in solar panels.
It's mostly a proof that regardless of energy technology, economic growth has a finite and intractable ceiling. We can only have less than that much energy use on the planet, so growth will have to come to a complete halt someday soon.
>>44131226
>>44129762
>>44127043
>You may also be interested to know that the loss of the oceans will mean no water to lubricate tectonic activity so plate tectonics will shut down.
That finding is being called into question.
http://m.phys.org/news/2013-06-lubricant-reassessment-role-plate-tectonics.html
>>44119836
Many things.
Con's:
>Massive loss of animal life
>Massive loss of human life
>Economic upheaval as ocean shipping is a thing of the past; goodbye petrodollar
>Life as we know it is no longer sustainable in the long term
Pro's:
>Lutefisk is never served again
>Southern California dies
>>44131226
You realize that most of the energy gathered by solar panels would have heated the Earth anyway, right?
On topic: depends on how gradual a process the oceans drying up would be. Either way, society as we know it is fucked, but if it's slow enough, humans could adapt culturally and survive.
>>44131226
That's assuming we don't devote infrastructure to cooling, or colonize other planets/systems, or start building out into space.
>>44131321
No it's the use of that energy that causes the problem. The sun is hitting the earth with about that much energy already, most of it escapes when the photons scatter off the ground back into space. If we used it, it couldn't escape nearly as easily and would build up to ocean boiling temps.
>>44131333
You don't devote infrastructure to those types of enterprises, also even if humanity did radically shift its industry and desperate economies to dealing with that problem, there isn't enough time.
>>44131293
That kinda sounds like a fair trade.
>>44131333
>That's assuming we don't devote infrastructure to cooling
There's no solution for that. Radiative heating is all that the earth has got. You're not going to offset that in any way that isn't just going to add to the heat problem.
>or colonize other planets/systems
This is a physical limit for the energy use on earth. Other planets cannot change this.
>or start building out into space.
Again, can't stop thermodynamics. The earth is an open system, but heat comes out far slower than it goes in, there's a limit to how much energy use and heat expenditure can go on on the surface before the temperature - the rate at which a blackbody cools - is greater than the boiling point of water.
This is independant of energy source, because energy use creates heat and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>44131382
>>44131382
More assumptions.
Your "proof" is starting to seem less like a proof and more like wishful thinking. Which raises the question of why you want humanity to be doomed to stagnation so badly.
>>44131226
Where did 10^16 come from?
>>44131413
>the rate at which a blackbody cools
equalizes with its environment, i should say.
>>44131111
On the contrary, the extreme surface temperature is the result of plate tectonics stopping in the absence of lubrication by water, which shut down the carbon cycle, resulting in a massive buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases. The temperature is assumed to have been quite temperate at first while Venus' water was breaking up in the upper atmosphere due to sunlight and leaking into space. If Earth were to magically lose her water, our plate tectonics would eventually stop, carbon would no longer return to the lithosphere, and we'd have a runaway greenhouse effect.
>>44131413
>There's no solution for that. Radiative heating is all that the earth has got.
Solutions:
Move many energy intensive processes off-planet
Build large radiators into the planet
You do realize that radiated heat is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, right?
>>44131422
Starting today at ~20 TW, 2.8% growth over 400 years leads to ~10PW. That's if we enjoy the same rate of economic growth we have for the last century, and most of our economy depends on. I.E, no events that make the great depression look like a hiccup.
>>44131476
But the water loss is due to solar wind.
http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Where_did_Venus_s_water_go
>>44131482
>Move many energy intensive processes off-planet
That has no effect on the total economic and energy output of earth.
>Build large radiators into the planet
Do you know how big you'd have to make these structures to increase the surface area of the earth by even 0.001%?
>You do realize that radiated heat is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, right?
10 petawatts is a lot, and it would be a constant source on the surface.
>>44131483
And *that* assumes that economic growth is proportional to energy use
>>44131413
Other planets can change the economic limit of humanity though. If you wanted to limit your theory theory to earth's economic activity, you should have specified that instead of simply saying economic activity. Because as it stands, there's a pretty big hole in your "proof" that "economic growth has a finite and intractable ceiling."
And that hole is space based technology and expansion, either into satellite stations, or colonization of other planets.
And megaprojects to build a cooling system for the earth are certainly possible, if not necessarily economical. If it's possible to keep the ISS cool, it would be possible, at least in theory, to mitigate the earth's rising temperature.
>>44131562
Of course it is. It's a basic fact. Are we close to building factories that take zero energy? Stores? Can we continue to make efficiency improvements over 100%?
>>44131520
Indeed it was, which is impossible on Earth due to our magnetosphere, which is why our oceans just can't "dry up" like OP said, unless magic is involved of course.
>>44131567
>Other planets can change the economic limit of humanity though. If you wanted to limit your theory theory to earth's economic activity, you should have specified that instead of simply saying economic activity. Because as it stands, there's a pretty big hole in your "proof" that "economic growth has a finite and intractable ceiling."
Economic growth on the earth. I've been saying this the whole time. It simply means that very shortly we have to completely stagnate and enter a permanent steady state on the planet, or we cook.
>And that hole is space based technology and expansion, either into satellite stations, or colonization of other planets.
Forgive me for being skeptical of such a convenient escape hatch to our problems.
>And megaprojects to build a cooling system for the earth are certainly possible, if not necessarily economical. If it's possible to keep the ISS cool, it would be possible, at least in theory, to mitigate the earth's rising temperature.
To increase the surface area of the earth, and thus its ability to radiate heat, by just 1% would require a radiator half the size of the continental united states. It would add about ten years until the same heat issue cropped up again.
>>44131548
>That has no effect on the total economic and energy output of earth.
Yes it does, because the heat ends up somewhere other than Earth.
>Do you know how big you'd have to make these structures to increase the surface area of the earth by even 0.001%?
About .001% of the surface are of the earth (first order approximation), and that's assuming you don't do anything clever like put your reactors there so the radiator is hotter than the Earth.
>10 petawatts is a lot, and it would be a constant source on the surface.
And? How was that number calculated?
>>44131590
We're building factories that use less energy. There's much more to efficiency than power generation. Also, that's not a basic fact at all. They're certainly related, but even before accounting for technological efficiency gains that relation need not be linear.
>>44131678
>Yes it does, because the heat ends up somewhere other than Earth.
Moving heat creates more heat. You're fighting thermodynamics. You're fucked.
>About .001% of the surface are of the earth (first order approximation), and that's assuming you don't do anything clever like put your reactors there so the radiator is hotter than the Earth.
So we turn rhode island into a radiator. That gets us, what, a decade of economic growth before we have to build another radiator?
Do you propose we convert the surface of the earth into a radiator?
And? How was that number calculated?
2.8% growth over 400 years starting from 20 terawatts today. >>44131263
>>44131762
Our shit is already at 20-40% efficiency which means a factor of 2-3 increase is all that is physically possible. It's not an escape.
>>44131600
So did you just completely miss the guy I replied to saying that it was because Venus got hot? And the article about water quite possibly not playing a big role in plate tectonics?
>>44131767
400 years seems like plenty of time to start a decent space program. Estimates right now have the first mission to mars 20 years away, a moon base 20 years away, etc, etc.
Heck, we're working on mining asteroids.
Who is to say we couldn't simply transfer economic activity to them, and heat, and then launch them in the direction of the sun once they're mined out?
>>44131670
>Economic growth on the earth. I've been saying this the whole time. It simply means that very shortly we have to completely stagnate and enter a permanent steady state on the planet, or we cook.
A) constantly spawning new colonies isn't stagnation
B) development can continue without energy growth. What needs to halt is population growth (after correcting for emigration)
>>44131821
>400 years seems like plenty of time to start a decent space program. Estimates right now have the first mission to mars 20 years away, a moon base 20 years away, etc, etc.
Doesn't change the energy use limit on earth, because thermal emission is the only way for the earth to shed heat on a large scale.
>Heck, we're working on mining asteroids.
Sure.
>Who is to say we couldn't simply transfer economic activity to them, and heat, and then launch them in the direction of the sun once they're mined out?
We can, it's a waste of money, But it doesn't change the amount of energy we can use on earth.
>>44131767
Generating heat somewhere other than Earth isn't moving heat.
>>44131857
>constantly spawning new colonies isn't stagnation
the earth's growth would be stagnant. Why are we shipping people off world? that's very expensive and energy intensive. Surely robots would be more efficient?
>development can continue without energy growth
In what form? Virtual goods? That'd quickly become the vast majority of the economy.
>>44131907
cultural goods.
>>44131884
generating heat on places other than earth doesn't change the limit of how much heat can be generated on earth.
>>44131767
No, how did you calculate how much heat is too much?
>>44131791
You're one dense motherfucker. Suppose I double generation efficiency and cut power consumption of our various gizmos by a factor of three.
That's six times the gizmo activity for the same heat production.
>>44131925
Not physical goods. You'd need energy to manufacture and distribute them. Energy is fixed at a certain point so we don't all die, so growth has to come from something that doesn't consume extra energy.
>>44131929
at this point I think you're deliberately being retarded.
>>44131929
So fucking what? Orbital factories can't contribute to Earth's economic growth?
>>44131954
So cultural goods can't contribute to economic growth?
You can pare down your claim even further but at this point the remaining skeleton is too uninsightful to bother with.
>>44131954
or growth is moved to new environments from earth.
Either way, earth itself isn't stagnating.
>>44131971
He's constantly moving the goal posts. First it was a hard cap on all economic activity. The people pointed out other planets. Then it was a hard cap on earth's economic activity. Then people pointed out orbital structures. Now it's a hardcap on purely planetside activity, and it doesn't include exporting anything off planet ever.
So I guess for very particular, very retarded, very limited definitions, he's right that the laws of thermodynamics mean earth is doomed to stagnation.
>>44131946
>No, how did you calculate how much heat is too much?
10 petawatts in our atmosphere would raise global temps to above water's boiling point.
>Suppose I double generation efficiency and cut power consumption of our various gizmos by a factor of three.
>That's six times the gizmo activity for the same heat production.
So you delayed the inevitable by 6 fold. Grats. Now what?
>>44132020
Being intentionally dishonest doesn't change the truth.
Go troll someone else. I'm not going to waste any more time.
>>44119836
ask Venus
>>44131814
>>44131277
It's currently a minority view in geophysics that water doesn't play an important role in plate tectonics. The olivine study hasn't affected the consensus opinion thus far.
>>44132057
where was I dishonest?
I'm trying to be generous here: either you had a point, albeit stupid, and largely irrelevant, or you were factually incorrect.
>>44132021
>10 petawatts in our atmosphere would raise global temps to above water's boiling point.
And how did you calculate that?
>>44119836
Plankton make up 90% of all photosynthesis.
There would be almost no oxygen and we'd all die.
>>44132021
>So you delayed the inevitable by 6 fold. Grats. Now what?
Now I've shown that your claim that heat generation is linearly related to economic growth is utter nonsense, especially since computing can potentially consume less than 1% as much power as it does currently.
>>44132304
Not immediately though.
Slow but inevitable extinction.
