-1
$\begingroup$

Something has happened, and it's irreversible. The world will die in fire, not ice. Perhaps the sun has expanded, a megavolcano has blackened the sky, a fusion reaction has become un-killable, aliens are aiming a heat ray at us, whatever. The cold hard fact is that the average temperature of the planet is rising at a breakneck rate of 1°C/month, and it won't stop.

All that's left is stalling the inevitable for a few moments.

  • How long could an unprotected human survive the temperature swings? The flooding?
  • What could the wealthy do to buy a little time for themselves?
  • How long would bunkers be effective?
  • How long before everything touching air catches fire?
  • What would the last person alive see as the world melts, the oceans boil, and the skies flee away?

Assume modern (as of 2017) technology.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Is this average global temperature? $\endgroup$
    – Joe Kissling
    Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 20:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoeKissling Yes. As it says. $\endgroup$
    – Emmett R.
    Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ "a megavolcano has blackened the sky" Wouldn't that cool off the earth instead? $\endgroup$
    – JAB
    Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 22:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Each of your questions is valid and deserve a proper answer. Therefore I think as it is now this is too broad and can be narrowed down. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch ♦
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 5:56

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

I'd say that up to 40°C at noon, humans can survive. Naturally, the ones living near the poles will last longer, especially if it coincides with winter in that hemisphere. Floodings do not seem a big problem, as there's always the mountains to take refuge to. The wealthy should go underground, in prepared shelters with stocks for years, each year going a bit deeper if the surface burns/melts away. Bunkers as you say. These could be effective practically forever, if they had power/food/water and other stocks. As you can see in wikipedia's Firelighting each material lights up in different temperatures, the lowest I see being paper/parchment at 200°C.
As for what the last person alive would see, I think nothing; the eyes will go blind in the hot air temperature long before the really interesting events play out.

Assuming that food is no problem (canned) since most flora and fauna will be dead early.

EDIT: The only hard problem with everlasting bunkers that I see is the recycling of breathable air. As air without becomes hotter, it will definitely become unbreathable. Special precaution needs to be taken for those people hidden underground, to be able to either cool the incoming air (how? at some point it will be able to melt the tubing itself if plastic) or have sustainable capacities for recycling oxygen and carbon dioxide - much like living in space.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Where does the underground bunker harvest energy, if the above surface is broiled? $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch ♦
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 5:22
  • $\begingroup$ @L.Dutch Nuclear reactor, possibly? Underground coal mining? Even the energy of the outside hot air itself could be used, by exploiting the temperature difference with the underground (geode heating in reverse). $\endgroup$
    – adonies
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 5:29
  • $\begingroup$ Mining is dangerous, and there are no hospitals nor supplier for spare parts to help in the event of an accident. Same for any other equipment, there will be nobody to supply spare parts. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch ♦
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 5:46
  • $\begingroup$ @L.Dutch I did some reading and I think that the most efficient power system would be an adaptation of geothermal heating pumps to collect heat from the atmosphere and transfer it inside the shelter for creating electricity (e.g. steam engine). livescience.com/7624-geothermal-heat-pumps-power-future.html $\endgroup$
    – adonies
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 14:39
  • $\begingroup$ in order to feed a steam engine you need to have temperatures higher than 100 C. That would mean waiting about 80 months. Plus, again, steam engines need spare parts (valves, bearings, lubes, etc.) $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch ♦
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 15:28
2
$\begingroup$

Flooding will be a huge problem. If all ice melts, sea level will rise about 70 meters and many coastal cities will be underwater. Here is national geographic article on the subject.

As sea level and temperature rises, larger and stronger hurricanes will occur more often. Also that means more water vapor in the atmosphere which would mean torrential rains. Also water vapor is a green house gas so it will lead to runaway green house effect.

The water table will also rise so underground bunkers might not work.

The more extreme weather will probably lead to ruined crops and food shortages.

Since the average Earth temperature is around 14C it will take some time for everyone to die. In the mid-latitudes you have seasonal variation of maybe around 40 - 45C ( -10C in winter to +35C in summer).

To maximize your survival, stockpile food, stay away from the coast, and move as far north as possible. Probably want to be in a mountain area to minimize the chance of tornado and raising water table. Underground bunker will stay somewhat cooler the geothermal gradient in most of the world is 1F per 70ft per wikipedia

In any case it seems unlikely anyone will survive more than 5 years.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how underground bunkers on areas with altitude of more than 200m will have problems with the rising of the sea level and the water table level. Care to explain, please? $\endgroup$
    – adonies
    Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 21:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ They are 2 separate things. If there are torrential rains the water level will rise and the uneven buoyancy can cause the bunker walls to crack or it could even float up to the surface (google it). $\endgroup$
    – ventsyv
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ What I understand from what you say is that underground shelters (bunkers) build deep within the e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transantarctic_Mountains will have problems with torrential rains, their walls will crack, and they will float up to the surface (of the mountain). I'm not convinced, so what should I google? $\endgroup$
    – adonies
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 14:44
  • $\begingroup$ No, what I'm saying is that if you build a bunker under your house in let's say Texas, you might end up with this: google.com/…: $\endgroup$
    – ventsyv
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ Building a shelter in a mountain, in some sort of rock formation is much better. $\endgroup$
    – ventsyv
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 14:50
1
$\begingroup$

The summer temperature in Antarctica is below 0C, the winter average temperature is -49C. 500 people live in Death Valley, which can reach 56C. So basically, you have 56+ years, at least. In bunkers, with cooling (provided by solar panels), probably over a century.

As for food, very few people could live on Antarctica. It won't be entirely underwater, but it will be small. I'd presume less than 1 in 100,000 people survive the fight to get there, build there, and live there: maybe 60,000. They will be the rich and ruthless, most likely, but they would have time to stockpile a few century's worth of dried food stuff; like soybeans and other protein rich foods, corn and sugar, things that can withstand long term warm storage when properly sealed or canned. They should have access to water (up to 100C when it boils).

As others note, it would take centuries for "anything touching air" to catch fire. The people will be dead long before then. If the last person sees anything; it will be a Death Valley like day; a barren desert under a clear blue sky, at the South Pole. Or a starry night; which would at least be a romantic ending. They will likely die when their equipment can no longer keep up with temperatures, and fails. After 75 years or so, everything has deterioriated, including their replacement parts (and their know how; they will be ancient adults or uneducated offspring).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ at 1 C/month one has 56 months... aka 4 years and 8 months... $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch ♦
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 5:24
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, my bad. I misread it.. But it's on hold, so, oh well. $\endgroup$
    – Amadeus
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 10:39

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .