Welcome to Earth, circa 14,000 AD.
The planet is populated not by dinosaurs, not by men, but by aquatic life, adapted to
live on land.
The most recognizable species to adapt in this way are the Inklings, evolved from squids,
and Octarians, evolved from octopi.
Other forms of life exist as well.
Jellyfish.
Sea urchins.
Sea cucumbers.
Fish.
But...
I digress.
How did we get to this point?
What happened to wipe out all mammals on the planet-save for a few scattered felines-,
in only 12,000 years?
How did mankind fall?
And, is it something we should actually worry about?
Is Splatoon's apocalypse… possible?
[War Robots]
So, Splatoon.
On the surface,
if you pardon the water pun,
the Splatoon games seem like simple, light-hearted fun from Nintendo.
A world populated by squid people who sling brightly colored ink at each other in urban
environments.
Everything is bright and happy! and inspired by a fusion of American street fashion and
Japanese pop culture.
You'd be hard-pressed to find anything aesthetically about the game that implies anything is amiss.
But the lore tells a very different story.
A darker story.
You find a Sunken Scroll showing a human skeleton.
Callie says during a Splatfest announcement that she would want to go to the past to see
"one of those odd 'human' things".
Some weapons appear to be made from re purposed human scrap.
Needless to say, it isn't just your typical Nintendo fantasy setting.
It turns out, it was a post apocalyptic Earth all along.
Just like in pikmin, and that one level in Kirby 64.
Maybe it is typical...
But that begs the question.
How did humans die out?
How did the world go, in the span of 12,000 years, from being populated by men, to being
populated by...squids?
We get our first taste of this in Sunken Scroll 10 from the first game.
Quote!
"With creatures of the surface driven to extinction by rising sea levels, the ancestors of Inklings
were free to haul their 10-legged bodies up onto the abandoned land.
This is how the Mollusc Era began."
So, we know that humans were driven to extinction by rising sea levels.
But we can dive deeper.
The first game's official art book, "The Art of Splatoon", contains a section with two
manga chapters.
In this, we come closest to an explanation for what happened to humanity.
Quote!
"This is Earth.
Mankind's violent nature had resulted in many civil wars and five great World Wars.
During the last war, someone from somewhere launched a nuclear warhead into the South
Pole.
In a finishing blow to the existing problem of global warming, the water level of the
oceans rose, submerging most of the landmasses on the planet.
The human population was decimated.
There were some who believed in the future...
And some who fled underground...
Despite their efforts, mankind perished.
Now that most of the planet had been submerged under the oceans, aquatic life forms began
to evolve.
Among them, squids and octopi were at odds and fought in fierce battles.
The squids emerged victorious.
A new civilization formed by the squids began."
But wait.
Could such a thing really happen?
Not the squid thing, rather…
Could a single nuclear weapon, or even several nuclear weapons for that matter, really trigger
a great flood to wipe out mankind?
And why would someone nuke the South Pole in the first place?
Well, that's what we're here to figure out.
The first question we have to ask is, how much would the sea level rise if the Antarctic
ice sheet were to melt?
It wouldn't be much of an apocalypse if there was still habitable land, even if there would
be a population collapse.
Well, if we melted ALL the captive ice on Earth, in addition to just the Antarctic ice
sheet, the ocean would rise...70 meters.
Now, that sounds like a lot, but...
It isn't really.
We'd lose...Florida?
And New York?
Some of South America...
But most of the land would be fine.
Not much of an apocalypse.
But there's a more critical issue with Splatoon's apocalypse than that, and that problem lies
in megaton yields.
The temperature of South Pole glacial ice varies depending on depth, but for the purposes
of our calculations we can safely assume that we can just use the highest recorded temperature
as a baseline, about -20 degrees Celsius.
We also need the weight of the Antarctic ice sheet, about 24.5 million billion kilograms
according to ClimateGen.org.
Let's also get the the heat coefficient of water, about 4.186 joules per gram-degree-Celsius,
and the heat of fusion of ice, about 334 joules per gram.
And to clarify what that means, a joule is a unit of energy, to keep it simple, there
are about 4 joules of energy in 1 calorie of food, calories being the thing that give
your body the energy it needs.
So First we need to raise the temperature of the ice to 0 degrees C, so the ice will
actually melt.
Multiplying the mass of the ice, 24,500,000,000,000,000,000kg, by the heat coefficient in joules per kilogram-degree-C,
4186, gives us the amount of energy in joules needed to raise the entire Antarctic ice sheet
by a single degree: 102,557 billion billion (note: yes two 'billion's) joules per degree
C.
We then multiply that by 20 degrees, getting 2,051,140 billion billion (note: again yes
two 'billion's) joules.
And To put that in a more manageable number, that's equal to 2,051,140,000,000 terajoules
of energy.
But that's only half the picture.
Now we need to add the energy needed to actually MELT the ice.
There is a difference between raising the temperature and melting the ice when it comes
to mathematically quantifying science.
We once again take the mass, 24,500,000,000,000,000,000kg, and now we multiply that by the heat of fusion,
the energy-per-mass needed to turn it from a solid to a liquid, about 334,000 joules
per kilogram.
This gives us 8.183 million billion billion (note: yes again two 'billion's)
joules.
Again to make that manageable that's about 8,183,000,000,000 terajoules.
Our total amount of needed energy then is 2,051,140,000,000 terajoules plus 8,183,000,000,000
terajoules, or, 10,234,140,000,000 terajoules.
For reference, 15,000,000,000 terajoules of energy strikes the Earth from the sun on a
given day.
This means you'd need the equivalent of 682.276 days' worth, or around 1.85 years' worth,
of sunlight to melt the Antarctic ice sheet.
This is already a ridiculous number, but let's keep going.
Converting to megatons of TNT, we'd need a nuclear bomb with a yield of 2,446,018,164.43595
megatons to melt the Antarctic ice sheet.
For reference, the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear bomb ever built and demonstrated,
had...
Drumroll please...
A 50MT yield.
Theoretically it was designed to go as high as 100MT.
So, we would need the equivalent of about 24.5 million of the most powerful THEORETICAL
nuclear bomb EVER DESIGNED in order to melt the Antarctic ice sheet.
For some reason, I doubt the Inklings' account of history.
In addition, why would someone nuke the South Pole to begin with?
The Antarctica Treaty System sets the continent aside as a scientific preserve, with a ban
on military action.
And, examining the 53 parties to the Antarctic Treaty System, it contains seven of the eight
sovereign states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons.
Even if someone did, all you'd have to destroy is a bunch of science stations and penguins,
and I fully understand wanting to nuke penguins!
But actually doing it???
You Monster... hmm...
This seems...unlikely.
So, we've established that the motive isn't there, and the means as stated aren't there
either...
But what if there wasn't a need for a motive?
What if it was a rogue missile, or someone hit a wrong button?
Could we establish an alternative means of this causing an apocalypse?
Some people have suggested that it wasn't the Antarctic ice sheet MELTING that caused
the issue, but the radiation.
They point to the grotesque appearance of the Salmonids, inspired by the appearance
of actual male salmon during mating season, as proof of some sort of radioactive mutation.
This theory, while not directly supported by the lore, is worthy of some consideration,
as while it isn't FEASIBLE, it is at least POSSIBLE.
For our purposes, let's assume that the salmon that theoretically mutated are from the Nova
Austral salmon farm in Chile, a minimum distance of 775 miles from the Chilean Antarctic Territory,
given that salmon aren't native to Antarctic waters.
Let's fire our theoretical nuke at the Chilean Antarctic Territory.
To begin with, the initial shock-wave and bubble of hot gases would severely harm aquatic
life in the immediate radius, given the Able and Baker tests at Bikini Atoll killed 38,000
fish, from just two 23 kiloton blasts.
Now, let's talk about our friend the 100 megaton Tsar Bomba again.
According to NUKEMAP, the thermal radiation radius of a 100 megaton Tsar Bomba detonation
would be about 40 miles.
Good news!
Our salmon are outside the blast radius by over 700 miles.
They don't die right away, or suffer any life-threatening burns.
The bad news is, based on the fallout contour from NUKE-MAP and wind current data from earth.nullschool.net,
it looks like the Nova Austral farm is right in the path of the fallout, receiving at minimum
10 rads per hour of airborne radiation.
No good data exists for the LD50/30 for salmon, but 300 to 3000 roentgens over a short period,
equivalent to 280-300 to 2800-3000 rads in soft tissue, would be certainty fatal to rainbow
trout!, and as low as 16 roentgens, or 15-16 rads, over a short period of time would be
fatal to rainbow trout eggs.
Humans in case you were wondering die from 500 to 1000 rads over a short period… i'm
very surprised fish are so hardy when it comes to radiation geez.
Additionally, these numbers appear to be relatively consistent across multiple species of fish.
Now, it's worth noting that the 10 rad/h number is for airborne radiation, and that the waters
at the Nova Austral farm sites can be over 60 meters deep.
However, while I couldn't find any data on the depth of the salmon pens, Nova Austral
also is a hatchery, which means shallow water and juvenile salmon.
This creates the perfect set of circumstances for non-fatal mutation.
Now, of course, in real life radioactive mutations aren't going to be the cause of a salmon developing
a large brain or bipedal body structure, and carp and catfish in Chernobyl's cooling ponds
have been exposed to much greater amounts of radiation without visible deformity.
In fact, there is even research showing that fish can develop radiation resistance from
small 'primer' doses.
But for the sake of the argument, let's say that Splatoon operates by the same rules as
1950s sci-fi, and that these perfect conditions created the Salmonids.
What, then, is in store for us humans?
Well, Sunken Scroll 16 from Splatoon 2 gives us some idea what to expect, and it doesn't
look good.
The scroll has a quote from an Inkling religious text called the 'Book of Madai', which reads
as follows: "When smoke rises from the seven rings, The pink fish will emerge from the
sea, devouring all the creatures of the land."
The corresponding artwork depicts a horde of Salmonids.
It seems then that the Salmonids, while being self-aware and intelligent, are a belligerent
and barbaric species that raze any society they encounter, and may even eat the people
within.
Eventually a stable Salmonid population existed, and boy to they populate fast… and during
one of the Salmonids' migrations, mankind was overrun, and possibly even consumed.
And now With the land cleansed of life, and the Salmonids primarily dwelling in the sea,
the stage is now set for other marine life to evolve, and begin their journey towards,
as the art book puts it, the Age of the Squid.
So in summary!
Nuking Antarctica wont get you very far.
Unless you just want to radiate some fish.
And finally take Florida out of the picture for good.
They deserve it.
So thanks so much for watching!
And until next time please remember to never stop using your gnoggin!
For more infomation >> Mother Lost Her Son And NEVER Got Call From Obama, But Look What She Just Got From Melania - Duration: 6:43. 
For more infomation >> They Have To Say Goobye To Their Baby Girl But What The Dogs Did Will Touch Your Heart Even More - Duration: 2:17. 
For more infomation >> US lost track of 1,500 immigrant children, but says it's not 'legally responsible' - Duration: 8:02. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét