Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

According to this article:

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_19461_6-b.s.-myths-you-probably-believe-about-americas-enemies.html

 

We have a lot of misconceptions about international politics.

 

I remember reading this article and thinking "okay, we may not get blown up, but we'll probably all die from upcoming natural disasters. I mean, our abuse of the world's resources have made the world unstable, leading to many natural disasters like the Haiti megaquake."

 

But then again, these myths - the ones about foreign policy - were all quelled. Maybe the rumor about an unstable planet is similarly grounded in propoganda.

 

Is there any real scientific truth to it?

Posted

I mean, our abuse of the world's resources have made the world unstable, leading to many natural disasters like the Haiti megaquake.

What evidence do you have that supports an anthropogenic source for megaquakes?

Posted

You need to ask this man Al_Gore.

I'm asking YOU because a) you made the claim, and b) Mr Gore is not a member here.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just hadn't heard that Haiti was all my fault.

Posted

Those pesky cobalt dimers, wrecking our atmosphere. :P

 

Do these cobalt dimers oscillate? They aren't much of a problem if they are electrically neutral. :unsure:

 

I'm asking YOU because a) you made the claim, and b) Mr Gore is not a member here.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just hadn't heard that Haiti was all my fault.

 

Phi for All, my post was addressed to the OP. You just replied before I did.

Posted

What evidence do you have that supports an anthropogenic source for megaquakes?

To be fair, I don't. That's why I was asking.

 

I've only heard that our excessive stripping of the earth's resources in the past few centuries has led to the earth becoming unstable.

 

Most of what I've heard is in theological debates; Christians think that these natural disasters are signs of the Biblically-predicted approaching end-times, whereas Atheists try to explain the natural disasters away as human activity putting a strain on the earth.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

To be fair, I don't. That's why I was asking.

 

I've only heard that our excessive stripping of the earth's resources in the past few centuries has led to the earth becoming unstable.

 

Most of what I've heard is in theological debates; Christians think that these natural disasters are signs of the Biblically-predicted approaching end-times, whereas Atheists try to explain the natural disasters away as human activity putting a strain on the earth.

 

Has anyone heard that mining coal and drilling for oil are creating great caverns that can lead to earthquakes? That seems plausible.

Posted

Speaking in terms of pure probability, the idea that the world will suffer some kind of natural apocalypse is, indeed, well founded. Cataclysmic events have already happened to the planet at various times in it's history, and as the years roll by, the certainty of another one happening approaches 100%. In my personal opinion, we're overdue for one.

 

What is very much up in the air is exactly what will happen, and when. The Yellowstone super-volcano could erupt next week. Another K-T style extinction event could occur in a thousand years. Or a million. How much you worry about these events depends on your idea of long term planning, I suppose, and your own estimation of your chance of survival.

Posted

Just a thought if we imagine that the human race can continue to exist for an infinite amount of time. You, dear reader, have to die and we could probably calculate the odds against you dying in the same month and year as me. Quite a big number but far from astronomical. We could include a third person and calculate the odds that the three of us will die in the same month and year. A bigger number, but manageable. By similar argument there is a finite number that gives the odds against everybody in the world dying in that month and year resulting in the end of the human race. The number is astronomical - but less than infinite. The odds probably indicate that the sun changing into a red giant and swallowing the earth is likely to occur first. However - things can happen against the odds - otherwise we wouldn't buy lottery tickets!

Posted

The Yellowstone supervolcano is overdue, so that seems the most immediate threat, after global warming. If we could only defuse Yellowstone by allowing it to erupt a little, just enough to relieve the pressure. ;)

Posted

The Yellowstone supervolcano is overdue....

...and this assertion is based on what? When exactly was it due?

Posted
I mean, our abuse of the world's resources have made the world unstable, leading to many natural disasters like the Haiti megaquake."

The only abuse of world resources that will lead to problems is global warning caused by excessive use of fossil fuels. There is no way in which mining or oil production had any effect upon the Haiti quake.

 

That quake was not a megaquake. It's destructive results were caused by the proximity of the fault to the town and the lack of an adeqate building code.

 

The Yellowstone supervolcano is overdue
It is not overdue. There is no reason to believe it is overdue. It is irresponsible to state it is overdue based upon casual hearsay.

 

Has anyone heard that mining coal and drilling for oil are creating great caverns that can lead to earthquakes? That seems plausible.
Mining can lead to some surface subsidence. Oil extracted from the small pore spaces in reservoirs is replaced immediately by water. It is possible that minor changes in matrix stress related to oil production could marginally alter the timing of a quake that was going to occur, but that is all. Generation of significant virgin quakes could not occur by this means.
Posted (edited)

It [Yellowstone] is not overdue. There is no reason to believe it is overdue. It is irresponsible to state it is overdue based upon casual hearsay.

 

Yellowstone is known to massively erupt, on the average, about every 600,000 years. Last eruption was 640,000 years ago, so we passed the average marker 40,000 years ago. 600,000 is only an average number, so there is no telling if it will erupt in a few years or decades from now, or not for 100,000 years. The expert I heard recently on Yellowstone is that there is no telling when it can erupt, but he thinks the next time it erupts it will not be a supereruption, or not a very great supereruption as many have speculated. If that is true, it could save the Earth from global warming, but only if it erupts not too much.

Edited by Airbrush
Posted

Yellowstone is known to massively erupt, on the average, about every 600,000 years. Last eruption was 640,000 years ago, so we passed the average marker 40,000 years ago. 600,000 is only an average number, so there is no telling if it will erupt in a few years or decades from now, or not for 100,000 years. The expert I heard recently on Yellowstone is that there is no telling when it can erupt, but he thinks the next time it erupts it will not be a supereruption, or not a very great supereruption as many have speculated. If that is true, it could save the Earth from global warming, but only if it erupts not too much.

 

 

That would be damn convenient wouldn't it? Maybe Gaea is real? :rolleyes: I think it's inevitable that at some point a devastating event will happen, probably inevitable that some psychic will be there to say I told you so too. So many people consistently predict some apocalyptic event is going to happen that eventually one of them will be correct...

Posted

Yellowstone is known to massively erupt, on the average, about every 600,000 years. Last eruption was 640,000 years ago, so we passed the average marker 40,000 years ago. 600,000 is only an average number, so there is no telling if it will erupt in a few years or decades from now, or not for 100,000 years.

 

Based on three eruptions, right? (which means two intervals) How much statistical confidence does that give you? What about the lack of eruptions before ~2.1 mya?

 

To be fair, I don't. That's why I was asking.

 

I've only heard that our excessive stripping of the earth's resources in the past few centuries has led to the earth becoming unstable.

 

Most of what I've heard is in theological debates; Christians think that these natural disasters are signs of the Biblically-predicted approaching end-times, whereas Atheists try to explain the natural disasters away as human activity putting a strain on the earth.

 

That's a problem inherent in listening to theological debates about science. One has to first establish that there is some increase in these disasters before coming up with an explanation for them.

Posted

To be fair, I don't. That's why I was asking.

 

I've only heard that our excessive stripping of the earth's resources in the past few centuries has led to the earth becoming unstable.

 

Most of what I've heard is in theological debates; Christians think that these natural disasters are signs of the Biblically-predicted approaching end-times, whereas Atheists try to explain the natural disasters away as human activity putting a strain on the earth.

 

 

 

That last assertion is problematical to say the least. I've never heard that Atheists try to explain the natural disasters away as human activity putting a strain on the earth.

 

Please show some example of that idea being true and that atheists assert it...

Posted (edited)

Based on three eruptions, right? (which means two intervals) How much statistical confidence does that give you? What about the lack of eruptions before ~2.1 mya?

 

Very interesting revelation, thanks for that. I need to do some research on this later. This means very little statistical confidence.

 

I just read up on wiki. The last 3 supereruptions were 640,000 years ago, 1,300,000 y.a., and 2,100,000 y.a. That means 800,000 years between the first 2 eruptions and 660,000 years between the second and last supereruption. That is an average of a supereruption every 730,000 years (2,100,000 - 1,300,000 = 800,000 and 1,300,000 - 640,000 = 660,000, and the average of the two is 800,000 + 660,000 = 1,460,000/2 = 730,000. That's an average of every 730,000 years. Where did they get an average of only 600,000 years?

 

Also ground level was rising over the past several decades and then seems to have slowed in 2010.

 

"...The upward movement of the Yellowstone caldera floor between 2004 and 2008 — almost 3 inches (7.6 cm) each year — was more than three times greater than ever observed since such measurements began in 1923.[24] From mid-summer 2004 through mid-summer 2008, the land surface within the caldera moved upwards as much as 8 inches (20 cm) at the White Lake GPS station.[25][26] By the end of 2009, the uplift had slowed significantly and appeared to have stopped.[27] In January 2010, the USGS stated that "uplift of the Yellowstone Caldera has slowed significantly"[28] and that uplift continues but at a slower pace.[29] The U.S. Geological Survey, University of Utah and National Park Service scientists with the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory maintain that they "see no evidence that another such cataclysmic eruption will occur at Yellowstone in the foreseeable future. Recurrence intervals of these events are neither regular nor predictable...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_caldera

Edited by Airbrush

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.