Environmentalists~Treehuggers Unite!

2005-04-12 [Pet Rock]: For those who are not aware, the biggest threat of global warming is the rising of the oceans. Even though the raise will only be a couple of feet, that will cross a critical threshold that will cause flooding worldwide, precipitating worldwide humanitarian and economic disasters.

2005-04-12 [Pet Rock]: As for the second question, will we kill ourselves in the process of filling our wallets? I would say it is possible, but improbable. Despite the climatery changes humanity might effect upon the planet, it is unlikely those will be sufficient to destroy the species, with the sole exception of some sort of nuclear armageddon taking place as a result of resource shortfall.

2005-04-12 [Pet Rock]: Anyways, if you want to follow the global warming debate, go here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.science/index.html

2005-04-22 [undeadmary]: Wow. thanks for the info. So you think its more possible for natural disasters to end human life? Like astoriods, or yellowstone? I live in eastern washington and am a easy target if that thing erupts like they predict it to. Have you heard about that yet? Well, if it does do a super eruption we won't have to worry about global warming since it will block out alot of the sun. I never knew looking on the bright side could be so depressing.

2005-04-23 [challie]: i think that as humans we are our biggest threat to our existence

2005-04-23 [undeadmary]: I don't necessarily think that we will end human existance but I sure as heck think that we're shorting the path to certian destruction.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: well, the last volcanic eruption powerful enough to signficantly alter the level of sunlight penetrating the atmosphere would have been Krakatowa in 19th century, but even that wasn't really significant enough to cause crop failure or dangerously extended winters. While the Cascades, including Mt. St. Helens and particularly Mt. Ranier (which is really close to Seattle) are still pretty active, but not to the degree where there would be a "super eruption." The bigger danger of a super erruption, if I understand what you mean, would come from the vicinity of Yellowstone National Park, which I believe is in Wyoming, but I could be wrong on that.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: Geologists discovered evidence of a super erruption originating from there (I don't recall when, but at least several tens of millions of years ago). Basically, that part of the continental plate is thin, meaning the mantle was closer to the surface of the earth. Apparently too much pressure had built up, and the resulting explosion covered most of what was Wyoming with molten lava and spread several feet of volcanic ash as far as Colorado. I don't know what kind of an affect that would have on the atmosphere or the ability of sunlight to reach the surface, but needless to say the destruction from such an event would be devastating on an unimaginable scale.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: As for foreign bodies like asteroids striking the earth, that would be a matter of mass and composition. When the Levy-Shoemaker comet broke up in Jupiter's atmosphere, several nuclear explosions were recorded. These explosion, had they occurred on earth, would have been sufficient in wiping out most larger and complex organisms, including us. Such an occurence is extremely rare, however, and with the advent of more complex missle technology coupled with nuclear weapons, the possibility of eliminating such a threat becomes more and more plausible.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: As for humanity wiping itself out...one would think it would be possible to do it with a biological agent, such as a bacteria or virus. I don't believe this to be possible. If the agent kills too quickly, it will die out quickly before it has a chance to spread. If it kills too slowly, then there is a chance of discovering a cure or working around the disease with shortened life spans (remember, humans are able to reproduce in 10-15 years, so anything taking longer than that too kill won't finish us off). Should there be a disease that kills in about 5-10 years, that could probably spread the globe, but its effects would be felt before 100% infection of humanity could occur,

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: so the subsequent breakdown of civilization (i.e. the global society by which the disease could spread so easily) would allow pockets of population to survive uninfected and eventually grow once the threat has passed. Of course, this is assuming the disease is 100% lethal. Humanity consists of 6 billion people, which makes the gene pool incredibly deep. It is highly likely that certain humans would be immune, and by Darwinian natural selection aka survival of the fittest, their immunity would be passed on to future generations, assuming a serum couldn't be developed from that immunity to protect those not immune. Read Jack London's "Red Plague," to see life after this latest scenario.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: The number one biggest threat humanity presents itself would be nuclear weapons. A catastrophic nuclear war, especially one combined with biological and chemical attacks, would not just be limited to destroying the participants. It is highly likely that the radiation could spread via ocean and air currents to the rest of the globe, effectively extinguishing all human life (unless some sort of "Fallout" shelter scenario were to occur). To see how a nuclear holocaust would look like, read Nevil Shute's On the Beach.

2005-04-23 [undeadmary]: Well, you were right on how you could be mistaken since yellowstone is a national park that goes through wyoming, montana, and idaho. From what I've heard there has been 3 super eruptions in the past. They say that a super eruption is comparable to a 1km astriod hittng the earth, and 5-10 times more likely to occur. Differant geolagists say differant things but they all say that it will be devistating, to north america and globally. But you are right in saying that the chance in that happening is low. Still, it makes you wonder....

2005-04-25 [Pet Rock]: I haven't been there, only the CA, AZ, NV, and UT national parks, so I had a feeling I might have to qualify my information there. Of all the superdisasters, that one probably has the most credence, since the technology necessary to prevent it from happening is probably centuries away.

2005-05-17 [MagpieWisdom]: I saw something on tv about yellowstone, it said that the eruption would release loads of co2 in the atmosphere which is what would kill of most of humanity globally, the ash flow would wipe out most of the USA in a matter of a few days.

2005-05-17 [MagpieWisdom]: oh, and it also said that it was overdue for an eruption, and was meant to go off years ago, but it was on TV

2005-05-17 [challie]: are there any good site you would recomend for some one who wants to get more involved with environment stuff?

2005-05-17 [Pet Rock]: [MagpieWisdom] - all that disaster stuff is supposedly overdue. Whether it is or not is another question. [challie] - I would recommend the Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.org/). They are one of the more responsible lobbies in the United States and don't have some of the associative stigma that Greenpeace and PETA have with eco-terrorism.

2005-05-21 [undeadmary]: Maybe the time span between natural disasters becomes longer after each occurance. You never know. Your words, Pet Rock?

2005-05-23 [Pet Rock]: Mmm...that's assuming it's all cyclical or patterned, and that's assuming it's in cycles and patterns we can understand. There's a lot of missing information in this puzzle that we need to accurately predict such cataclysmic events.

2009-11-25 [Mortified Penguin]: Is it too late to make fun of you global warming believing hippies?