Excuse me? You would like it even cooler? The IPCC data shows that the avg. ambient temperature has NOT increased appreciably in the last 10 years (in spite of escalating CO2). With hundreds an eruptions annually spewing vast amounts of CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere, it'd take a pretty sizeable, catastrophic explosion to have a signficant, lasting effect. Yellowstone? Life altering. Anak Krakatoa? Maybe a cooler summer again next year.
I had a dream last night that I was near Mount Hood, when the peak of the mountain just slid right off. People were swept away - not too many, and those that were up there were either Mormons going for a religious reason, or hikers who want to climb it because it's there. Obviously Mt. Hood was a lot easier to climb in my dream than it really is. Well the top slid off, and for some reason I went to the top, and it was a round depression. The inside of it had the texture of crushed Oreos with some bigger chunks. But underneath that, we could see it moving, and feel the incredible heat from the lava.
And all I could think was, where the heck is the USGS monitoring station?
Yellowstone seems to be the biggie at the moment, Land mass still rising, more and more tremors are happening more often, yet no one knows if it's gonna blow or not anytime soon, it's supposedly already overdue with the so called every 600,000 year eruption concept.
Stop teasing us with the promise of world changing disasters. This, Yellowstone. I can't take your teasing any more. If Earth doesn't stop it, I'm moving to Io.
lightning striking an awakening volcano? This could become either the greatest opening of the greatest of all metal songs, the signal of the birth/coming of a wrathful god, or the intro to the newest godzilla movie
I have actually seen one theory that suggests that when the global tempurature increases, the earth heats enough to increase vulcanism which puts ash in the air and decreases insolation, cooling the earth. The magma also helps to sequester carbon somehow.
I'm not enough of a climatologist to know if this is BS or anti-environmentalism spin.
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: I'm a firm believer that the Earth is a single living organism that we do not in any way comprehend and we are but a deadly virus proliferating within (or upon) its confines waiting to be purged.
Before anyone calls me crazy, just name one positive thing the human race has done for the planet since we arrived. You can't. We do nothing but destroy the natural and wonderful order without any clue as to the true repercussions of our actions. Good thing for Mother Earth then that we'll all be long dead and gone before she is.
@AldoraGreel: Without commenting on the actual validity of your post (because I distracted myself), what you are saying reminds me of that hor-awful movie The Happening with Mark Wahlberg.
I can’t believe I sat through a movie in which the misunderstood bad guy was trees and Marky Mary didn't kick ass once. There was footage of leaves rustling menacingly in the wind for goodness' sake!
@RandomFrequentFlierDent: Yeah, that movie was pretty awful (considering it starred Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel I figured it would at least be decent).
However, it's not that far off. While I don't think the planet is literally out to kill us (as in the film), I do believe we're not helping it in any way whatsoever. Put it this way: the planet isn't big enough for us and the planet. Haha. Guess which one is going to be here longer? It's only a matter of time...
@Commander Shepard: If you think differently you're just kidding yourself. A lot of people are. I don't blame you. It's much easier to think we're the best thing ever than to understand we are worthless in the grand scheme of everything ever.
Deterministically, the grand chain of cataclysmic events that lead to Earth's current hospitable climate would indicate that such a trend is likely to continue, in spite of or because of human interference.
Of course though, Mother Nature is just being wily. Distracting us with volcanoes whilst her grand glacial army prepares to march on humanity.
TheGreat&PowerfulTurtle promoted this comment
Edited by M*A*S*H: not balanced for lean. at 07/31/09 11:41 AM
M*A*S*H: not balanced for lean. was starred
M*A*S*H: not balanced for lean. was unstarred
"I'm a firm believer that the Earth is a single living organism that we do not in any way comprehend and we are but a deadly virus proliferating within (or upon) its confines waiting to be purged."
You're certainly entitled to whatever religious beliefs you want, but why do you think they have any usefulness as an argument?
"Before anyone calls me crazy, just name one positive thing the human race has done for the planet since we arrived. "
Define for me what you think the planet's best interests and/or desires are, and I'll be happy to. People do all sorts of things.
-Kle.
The sulfur could cool down the planet...but could there possibly be other unforeseen effects? Could the sulfur perhaps combine with other gases in the atmosphere, with unforeseen consequences? Can anyone with some chemistry education comment on this?
@The_Sporean_Bob: You're absolutely right; some of the sulfur would be converted into sulfuric acid by reactions in the atmosphere. (This kind of sulfur released by industry is what gives us acid rain).
It also wouldn't be a long-term solution to climate change; it cools the planet because the sulfur is in the form of sulfate aerosols, little particles that reflect quite a bit of sunlight back into space, cooling the planet. As soon as those particles have settled out of the atmosphere, the temperature (usually, more or less) goes right back to what it would have been without the eruption.
Charlie Jane Anders promoted this comment
CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard) was starred
CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard) was unstarred
"Scientists calculated that the colossal tsunami-causing 2004 Sumatra earthquake caused a slimming of the Earth that shortened the day by a few millionths of a second and shifted the North Pole by an inch."
Nukes couldnt even whipe out humanity, let alone dent the earth significantly.
If we want total destruction, the best technique would be some sort of large (a few km) parabolic mirror in a orbit positioned to reflect the light down to the surface.
Explosions might look impressive on a human scale, but a giant unstopable and continious concentrated beam from the sun would do lot more damage overall.
Plus, as the earth rotates and it dosnt have to be in sycn, it would nicely slice a burnt line over the planet :D
@twDarkflame: are you sure they couldn't wipe out humanity? I mean, 26,000 of them all going off at once? That would surely sting a little? Unless of course you mean the rest of us would all be wiped out, but you personally have some incredible deep bunker stocked with food and water for 300 years ...
@hamshank: It surely would. Granted the majority of the nukes (should each and every single one detonate) would be directed in ours and Russia's direction and most likely only in strategic locations, but the resulting explosions and fallout would kill a substantially large percentage of earth's population. A good portion of the rest probably wouldn't be able to repopulate... so yeah, I'd say it would sting.
Now excuse me while I go cheer myself up with pictures of kitties.
The effect of even a small nuclear exchange would have devastating effects on the global populace.
First of all, the effects of EMP would destroy most if not all of our electronics. No phone, no internet, no TV, no radio... The military has shielded communications, but that's it for the most part. Even your car is not going to start unless it was made before 1973 and doesn't have a chip starter. Most city water supplies would fail as well.
The damage from EMP is irreparable.
If your city wasn't near a blast site, well the satellites all got cooked anyway. So most of the shit you do own isn't going to do you much good.
Fallout from Chernobyl drifted around almost half the Earth. That was one nuclear disaster. Fallout from a small nuclear war would spread around the globe. The ozone would have severe damage that might not be repaired for thousands of years. Global warming wouldn't be a problem because sunlight would be drastically reduced for years as soot and smoke covered the globe. Nuclear winter. Agriculture is severely disrupted.
Facing scarcity of resources and severed trade capabilities, warfare and conflict explodes.
Did I forget to mention what happens when you have poor access to medical supplies and clear water? Most of the first world becomes the third world overnight.
You'll be lucky if a couple billion people aren't dead of either disease, famine or war within a decade.
Hmm. I don't know. If there was a massive, all out nuke lovefest between the U.S, China and Russia? The skies would be almost pitch black for 20 years.
I wouldn't bet on the survival of much of anything. Don't forget, we gotta eat to survive. What are you going to eat if the food chain breaks down?
Um wrong, its only extremely annoying. And in truth its really unknown how much it would really effect us because devices you would think would fail, have in tests shown to be capable of surviving pretty severe EMP blasts.
"Fallout from Chernobyl drifted around almost half the Earth."
Not quite, and it was about as damaging as a day in the sun for 3/4ths of the range of its travel.
"Facing scarcity of resources and severed trade capabilities, warfare and conflict explodes.
Did I forget to mention what happens when you have poor access to medical supplies and clear water? Most of the first world becomes the third world overnight.
You'll be lucky if a couple billion people aren't dead of either disease, famine or war within a decade. "
But that would still not wipe out the human population. Heck the third world would likely thrive as it will do little to change their way of life. It would suck for us, but people forget that electricity and even common running treated water has only existed as we know it now for roughly 100 years. Integrated circuits that would be effected by a EMP pulse even less time.
While all of those sick before the war (ie people with diabetes or other diseases requiring daily or even monthly medical treatment) will die within days or weeks, healthy people outside of the lethal dose range for radiation will probably survive though I am not sure I would want to be one of them.
And while radiation will seriously effect procreation, eventually humans will be able to reproduce at the same level they have in the past.
Life will go on, it just wont be like it is today, but more like the 17-19th centuries.
"No, no black skies. Volcanoes pump more up then nukes would do."
No.
I think we've agreed to disagree. Most of the global populace no longer knows how to survive without the infrastructure that is in place.
Katrina showed what happens when that thin veil of civilization is pulled away. You both have very very unrealistic notions of what happens when things fall apart. People don't have a town meeting and start planning on how to survive. It's not like an SM Stirling novel. People kill each other. People set things on fire. People loot. And then people die.
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
Excuse me? You would like it even cooler? The IPCC data shows that the avg. ambient temperature has NOT increased appreciably in the last 10 years (in spite of escalating CO2). With hundreds an eruptions annually spewing vast amounts of CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere, it'd take a pretty sizeable, catastrophic explosion to have a signficant, lasting effect. Yellowstone? Life altering. Anak Krakatoa? Maybe a cooler summer again next year.
07/31/09
And all I could think was, where the heck is the USGS monitoring station?
Awesome photos.
07/31/09
08/01/09
Geology does not abide by humanity's schedules.
Might be right now, might be after we're extinct.
-Kle.
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
Whatever.
Signed,
Earth
P.S. - Don't come crawling back to me when Io gives you something you can't cure.
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
Where's the death metal awesome in your explanation, Professor? I'm looking but I cannot find any.
07/31/09
I'm not enough of a climatologist to know if this is BS or anti-environmentalism spin.
07/31/09
Before anyone calls me crazy, just name one positive thing the human race has done for the planet since we arrived. You can't. We do nothing but destroy the natural and wonderful order without any clue as to the true repercussions of our actions. Good thing for Mother Earth then that we'll all be long dead and gone before she is.
07/31/09
I can’t believe I sat through a movie in which the misunderstood bad guy was trees and Marky Mary didn't kick ass once. There was footage of leaves rustling menacingly in the wind for goodness' sake!
Oh, spoiler alert by the way . . .
07/31/09
However, it's not that far off. While I don't think the planet is literally out to kill us (as in the film), I do believe we're not helping it in any way whatsoever. Put it this way: the planet isn't big enough for us and the planet. Haha. Guess which one is going to be here longer? It's only a matter of time...
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
Fucking hippy.
07/31/09
07/31/09
And if you feel so strongly about this, feel free to kill yourself. Really, I mean... One less viral organism.
07/31/09
@AldoraGreel: Quick; somebody page Ted.
Deterministically, the grand chain of cataclysmic events that lead to Earth's current hospitable climate would indicate that such a trend is likely to continue, in spite of or because of human interference.
Of course though, Mother Nature is just being wily. Distracting us with volcanoes whilst her grand glacial army prepares to march on humanity.
07/31/09
*sigh*
Aldora. I am sure you are a really sweet person to be around. I am sure that you are extremely intelligent. Did I mention you are hot?
I just figured you needed to hear it.
08/01/09
"I'm a firm believer that the Earth is a single living organism that we do not in any way comprehend and we are but a deadly virus proliferating within (or upon) its confines waiting to be purged."
You're certainly entitled to whatever religious beliefs you want, but why do you think they have any usefulness as an argument?
"Before anyone calls me crazy, just name one positive thing the human race has done for the planet since we arrived. "
Define for me what you think the planet's best interests and/or desires are, and I'll be happy to. People do all sorts of things.
-Kle.
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
07/31/09
It also wouldn't be a long-term solution to climate change; it cools the planet because the sulfur is in the form of sulfate aerosols, little particles that reflect quite a bit of sunlight back into space, cooling the planet. As soon as those particles have settled out of the atmosphere, the temperature (usually, more or less) goes right back to what it would have been without the eruption.
07/31/09
06/03/09
It also got my legs wet.
06/03/09
+ Watch video
06/03/09
06/03/09
06/03/09
If we want total destruction, the best technique would be some sort of large (a few km) parabolic mirror in a orbit positioned to reflect the light down to the surface.
Explosions might look impressive on a human scale, but a giant unstopable and continious concentrated beam from the sun would do lot more damage overall.
Plus, as the earth rotates and it dosnt have to be in sycn, it would nicely slice a burnt line over the planet :D
06/03/09
06/03/09
Now excuse me while I go cheer myself up with pictures of kitties.
06/03/09
The world is *big*
06/03/09
The effect of even a small nuclear exchange would have devastating effects on the global populace.
First of all, the effects of EMP would destroy most if not all of our electronics. No phone, no internet, no TV, no radio... The military has shielded communications, but that's it for the most part. Even your car is not going to start unless it was made before 1973 and doesn't have a chip starter. Most city water supplies would fail as well.
The damage from EMP is irreparable.
If your city wasn't near a blast site, well the satellites all got cooked anyway. So most of the shit you do own isn't going to do you much good.
Fallout from Chernobyl drifted around almost half the Earth. That was one nuclear disaster. Fallout from a small nuclear war would spread around the globe. The ozone would have severe damage that might not be repaired for thousands of years. Global warming wouldn't be a problem because sunlight would be drastically reduced for years as soot and smoke covered the globe. Nuclear winter. Agriculture is severely disrupted.
Facing scarcity of resources and severed trade capabilities, warfare and conflict explodes.
Did I forget to mention what happens when you have poor access to medical supplies and clear water? Most of the first world becomes the third world overnight.
You'll be lucky if a couple billion people aren't dead of either disease, famine or war within a decade.
06/03/09
Google the amount of arable land in the world, then find out where the vast majority of our food is being produced.
There are more than enough nuclear weapons to easily scorch and irradiate that land.
06/03/09
Hmm. I don't know. If there was a massive, all out nuke lovefest between the U.S, China and Russia? The skies would be almost pitch black for 20 years.
I wouldn't bet on the survival of much of anything. Don't forget, we gotta eat to survive. What are you going to eat if the food chain breaks down?
Interesting questions.
06/04/09
"The damage from EMP is irreparable."
Um wrong, its only extremely annoying. And in truth its really unknown how much it would really effect us because devices you would think would fail, have in tests shown to be capable of surviving pretty severe EMP blasts.
"Fallout from Chernobyl drifted around almost half the Earth."
Not quite, and it was about as damaging as a day in the sun for 3/4ths of the range of its travel.
"Facing scarcity of resources and severed trade capabilities, warfare and conflict explodes.
Did I forget to mention what happens when you have poor access to medical supplies and clear water? Most of the first world becomes the third world overnight.
You'll be lucky if a couple billion people aren't dead of either disease, famine or war within a decade. "
But that would still not wipe out the human population. Heck the third world would likely thrive as it will do little to change their way of life. It would suck for us, but people forget that electricity and even common running treated water has only existed as we know it now for roughly 100 years. Integrated circuits that would be effected by a EMP pulse even less time.
While all of those sick before the war (ie people with diabetes or other diseases requiring daily or even monthly medical treatment) will die within days or weeks, healthy people outside of the lethal dose range for radiation will probably survive though I am not sure I would want to be one of them.
And while radiation will seriously effect procreation, eventually humans will be able to reproduce at the same level they have in the past.
Life will go on, it just wont be like it is today, but more like the 17-19th centuries.
06/04/09
No.
I think we've agreed to disagree. Most of the global populace no longer knows how to survive without the infrastructure that is in place.
Katrina showed what happens when that thin veil of civilization is pulled away. You both have very very unrealistic notions of what happens when things fall apart. People don't have a town meeting and start planning on how to survive. It's not like an SM Stirling novel. People kill each other. People set things on fire. People loot. And then people die.