Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord_Shadow]

Why does every post just make me want to embark on a super volcano more and more

[Quantum Toast]

Why does every post just make me want to embark on a super volcano more and more

Just as well nobody's found HFS yet.

[piecewise]

End 80% of life on earth? Pishaw. If anything it will end maybe 20% of life, the stuff that is very precariously balanced. I should also point out that if we're talking about volume of life as opposed to diversity, one quart of sea water has 10 billion things living in it. I doubt some ash and cloud cover will kill them all.

[Deon]

we have no way of hindering it and it would probably end 80%+ of all life.

Do you think there's no life in Europe/Asia?
What is it? I don't even...

[zwei]

End 80% of life on earth? Pishaw. If anything it will end maybe 20% of life, the stuff that is very precariously balanced. I should also point out that if we're talking about volume of life as opposed to diversity, one quart of sea water has 10 billion things living in it. I doubt some ash and cloud cover will kill them all.

Balance, schmalance. It goes like this:

 Ash -> "Nuclear" winter -> No energy for photosysthesis -> Food chain gets broken from botton to top -> Pretty much everything dies of hunger.

Only things that survive are the ones that can live on little or scavenge effectivelly. Anything over ~10kg just can't survive it.

[Deon]

I know how the nuclear winter works, but ask any geologist and he'd laugh at it or at least say that it's none of their business. It doesn't mean that it's right, but there're 2 factors which are much more important that this "supervolcano" event:
1) It may be just a theory, also it may explode in 10 or 20 thousands years.
2) Anyway right now nothing would really "help" if it would start, it's like discussing a solar flare which would burn the earth . We can discuss it but we can't control it.

For me it's just another rumor, and we have much bigger problems right now. At least it's how humanity works . We have much more dangerous "smaller" problems which are happening right now than probable huge problems we like to discuss.

[Soadreqm]

Yeah, all the GOOD harbinger of the apocalypse mention a way to REACT to the apocalypse in some constructive way. Repent from your evil ways, send a team of oil rig workers to nuke an asteroid, something like that. Any second we could be wiped out by an unpredicted supernova somewhere close by, or a huge-ass solar flare, or a really big volcanic explosion. And not only can we DO NOTHING about it, we don't even properly understand the mechanics of what would make it happen!

And if 80% of all life on earth got wiped out, the remaining 20% would probably be the things that live on the ocean floor next to a volcanic vent, can hibernate for six thousand years under a glacier, live inside bedrock subsisting on sulfur deposits, or in some other way cannot be killed. Not humans. While living in a giant bunker with an infinite energy source and your own ecosystem makes you pretty much independent of the rest of the planet, you won't have anywhere to run when some act of plate tectonics smashes your house like an empty eggshell. And space is just as bad, with deadly projectiles and absolutely no usable resources. Well, both of those could get you across a nuclear winter if you had enough redundancy, but they need preparation time.

[Deon]

The dwarves would survive though. A world flooded with magma is nothing. Actually, it's good. No more goddamn elves .

Also the main problem it would mean for me is that our grandchildren won't have a DF 1.0 .

[Asmodeous]

End 80% of life on earth? Pishaw. If anything it will end maybe 20% of life, the stuff that is very precariously balanced. I should also point out that if we're talking about volume of life as opposed to diversity, one quart of sea water has 10 billion things living in it. I doubt some ash and cloud cover will kill them all.

Balance, schmalance. It goes like this:

 Ash -> "Nuclear" winter -> No energy for photosysthesis -> Food chain gets broken from botton to top -> Pretty much everything dies of hunger.

Only things that survive are the ones that can live on little or scavenge effectivelly. Anything over ~10kg just can't survive it.

With this you are implying that the entire planet is going to be covered in a dense shell of ash, which is unlikely. Though the amount of energy from the sun would be decreased due to ash in the atmosphere, the particulates from the ash will diffuse, allowing enough in that the entirety of the food chain isn't going to break.

It will break mostly in areas close to the caldera (the further you get, the less issue), and only temporarily as the particulates will continue to diffuse over time, which will reduce the effect around the caldera and increase it around the rest of the globe until it reaches a happy medium.

80% of all life is really quite nonsensical.

[Cheeetar]

No, until we can look after our own planet, we don't deserve to be allowed anywhere else. If humanity is killed off by a natural disaster before we learn to live in harmony with the planet, then that's just too bad.

I disagree. No matter how selfish the majority of the human race is, killing everyone just because some people don't deserve to live is bad.

And now I have the feeling that your post was sarcastic and I'm being stupid.

[RavingManiac]

From Wikipedia:
"Within the past 17 million years, 142 or more caldera-forming eruptions have occurred from the Yellowstone hotspot."

How long ago was the last mass extinction again?

[Asmodeous]

From Wikipedia:
"Within the past 17 million years, 142 or more caldera-forming eruptions have occurred from the Yellowstone hotspot."

How long ago was the last mass extinction again?

~75,000 years when Toba erupted with a blast ~3x that of what Yellowstone manages. It almost wiped out all human life, however at the time we also weren't too huge and were located almost entirely around that area, give or take.

[Deon]

No, until we can look after our own planet, we don't deserve to be allowed anywhere else. If humanity is killed off by a natural disaster before we learn to live in harmony with the planet, then that's just too bad.

I disagree. No matter how selfish the majority of the human race is, killing everyone just because some people don't deserve to live is bad.

And now I have the feeling that your post was sarcastic and I'm being stupid.

Also it's not "killing", it's rather an inability of humans to adapt to such circumstances .

[Cheeetar]

No, until we can look after our own planet, we don't deserve to be allowed anywhere else. If humanity is killed off by a natural disaster before we learn to live in harmony with the planet, then that's just too bad.

I disagree. No matter how selfish the majority of the human race is, killing everyone just because some people don't deserve to live is bad.

And now I have the feeling that your post was sarcastic and I'm being stupid.

Also it's not "killing", it's rather an inability of humans to adapt to such circumstances .

Same effect.

[Deon]

Well, I mean that you may agree or disagree, it doesn't change the thing. The killing is usually an act of a living object influencing another living object. The volcano explosion in this case would be just a change of the environment. One day people will be ready to adapt to it on a massive scale. Maybe.