NationStates Jolt Archive

Not just within our lifetime, but in view of humanity.

Lots of people up about global warming. Hmm.

What about this? http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/text.asp?pid=355
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/1950da/Ward_Asphaug_fig2_martin-SMALL.jpg
Why isn't 1950 DA listed on the Risk Page?

1950 DA is an asteroid for which there is some possibility of impact in March of the year 2880. The case is extraordinary because the current orbit of 1950 DA is very precisely known, which allows us to explore centuries into the future, much farther than is usually possible.

Or http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a99942.html

It seems that we're identifying more of these over time, and some actually pose a risk. While a bit of global warming may disrupt weather, it's unlikely to destroy civilization. But an impact like this could kill most of the people on the planet.

It's God's modern version of a great flood. I mean, way back when, surviving a massive flood like that would've actually been a challenge. Now that vengeful little bastard is testing us again. Many will parish, few will survive. But hey, surely we'll get another start with a fresh slate, eh?

There are plans being develloped to stop 'planet-killing' asteroids/comets/meteor(ite)s hitting us. In as much as people have suggested nuking them, or pushing them out of the way with rockets or space-lasers.

If we can spot them in time, we can probably do something about them. Or at least dig a big hole to hide in..

By the time that thing's supposed to hit, I figure the moon will be a laser-ridden battlestation anyway, and we can just nuke the thing before it gets through the asteroid belt.

Czardas.

Yes, we can worry about asteroids...but there is only so much we can do to 'destroy' them before they hit us. Really, if it's going to happen, there is little we can do to stop it.

Global warming, however, being caused by humans, is something we can tackle. If we get wiped out in the meantime, oh well. That'll solve the problem right there:)

But seriously...we can build up some sort of arsenal for asteroid destruction, fine. But we should not do that at the expense of dealing with long term issues either. It would really suck to blow up a huge asteroid about to make us all extinct...only to find out that levels of pollution had gotten so bad in the meantime, that you bastards all had to move to Canada in order to not fry to death in the burning sun:)

By the time that thing's supposed to hit, I figure the moon will be a laser-ridden battlestation anyway, and we can just nuke the thing before it gets through the asteroid belt.

One of them is coming in 2036. That is well within the lifetime of some of the people on this forum. I don't believe there will be any weapons significant enough to do anything about it.

We'll just have to hope that it misses.

I worry that the aliens will attempt to harvest us for food and an intergalactic war will test all of us.

One of them is coming in 2036. That is well within the lifetime of some of the people on this forum. I don't believe there will be any weapons significant enough to do anything about it.

We'll just have to hope that it misses.

I dreamt about that once, actually. If my brain is to be believed, it will hit the moon and we'll miss the initial impact, but have to deal with a whole mess of debris coming down as the impact gouges a hole in the lunar surface the size of Ireland.

By the time that thing's supposed to hit, I figure the moon will be a laser-ridden battlestation anyway, and we can just nuke the thing before it gets through the asteroid belt.
Agreed. 2880 is a long way off. Either we will be a master civilization who are masters of technology, or have nigh destroyed ourselves and are trying to convince that stubborn old horse to hitch to the buggy.

Superviruses. As we invade more and more isolated ecosystems and disrupt them, I think the likelihood of man discovering a new virus and it becoming an epidemic is just a matter of time. I think most people take Earth for granted and our planet is a lot less 'explored' than we might like to think.

actually what we should be afraid about are avian flu and global warming

avian flu as if it is as deadly when it becomes human pathogenic then it will kill millions possibly billions especially as the drugs don't work very well (20% sucsess rate according to study published in new scientist) and also not enough of them.

also under the sea there are huge methane beds that will defrost if the temp rises too much that will basicly make it 100%-300% ish worse.

we are talking a temp rise of 9C here (the rise that got the permian extinction was only 6C 90%+ extinct of all know species of the time)

(the rise that got the permian extinction was only 6C 90%+ extinct of all know species of the time)

Of the listed causes, only one involves warming, which leads to glaciation. The rest involve cooling and glaciation.

http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/permcause.html
1. One of the most current theories for the mass extinction of the Permian is an agent that has been also held responsible for the Ordovician and Devonian crises, glaciation on Gondwana. A similar glaciation event in the Permian would likely produce mass extinction in the same manner as previous, that is, by a global widespread cooling and/or worldwide lowering of sea level.

2. Another theory which explains the mass extinctions of the Permian is the reduction of shallow continental shelves due to the formation of the super-continent Pangea. Such a reduction in oceanic continental shelves would result in ecological competition for space, perhaps acting as an agent for extinction. However, although this is a viable theory, the formation of Pangea and the ensuing destruction of the continental shelves occurred in the early and middle Permian, and mass extinction did not occur until the late Permian.

3. A third possible mechanism for the Permian extinction is rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations produced by concurrent glaciation events on the north and south poles. In temperate zones, there is evidence of significant cooling and drying in the sedimentological record, shown by thick sequences of dune sands and evaporites, while in the polar zones, glaciation was prominent. This caused severe climatic fluctuations around the globe, and is found by sediment record to be representative of when the Permian mass extinction occurred.

4. The fourth and final suggestion that paleontologists have formulated credits the Permian mass extinction as a result of basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia. These volcanic eruptions were large and sent a quantity of sulphates into the atmosphere. Evidence in China supports that these volcanic eruptions may have been silica-rich, and thus explosive, a factor that would have produced large ash clouds around the world. The combination of sulphates in the atmosphere and the ejection of ash clouds may have lowered global climatic conditions. The age of the lava flows has also been dated to the interval in which the Permian mass extinction occurred.

I think this might be what you are looking for:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/exitmundi.htm

Also, I found "A Choice of Catastrophes: The Disasters that Threaten Our World" by Isaac Asimov rather informative as well.

Let's see: global warming, transhumanism, near-earth asteroids, at least if you ask me.

*snip*.
Nine year old theory. While he did not reference a source, there can easily be better information found in nine years time. It also ignores any theory relating to climate.

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Permian/intro.html
Newer site with information including climate.

Nine year old theory. While he did not reference a source, there can easily be better information found in nine years time.

Which post did you snip? I can't tell what you're trying to answer.

Which post did you snip? I can't tell what you're trying to answer.
I would venture to guess the last one you posted with attempted explanations to counter what the other guy wrote.

I'm not bothered about asteroids. Sooner or later, the dice come up snake-eyes, there's nothing we can do about it (put it this way, it's entirely possible we never even see the one that gets us until it hits the atmosphere).

Global Warming on the other hand is real trouble we can deal with to some extent.

Superbugs like HIV and Ebola are the other real danger I see, eventually we'll find more and more virii/bacteria that can get through our immune systems, if one of them turns out to be really contagious then we're in it up to the nose.

Dictatorships. Much more lightly to cause death and misery than meteorites and germs.

Dictatorships. Much more lightly to cause death and misery than meteorites and germs.

You mean likely? :rolleyes:

Hm.

This (http://media2.funnyjunk.com/flash/8cb7e9cdd4dfc/dorld.swf) makes things much clearer for me.

You mean likely? :rolleyes:
No, he means that the dictatorships will cause death, and they will do so in a manner that is joking and fails to take it all seriously or consider the depth of the problem.

You mean likely? :rolleyes: .

No need to be a spelling-nazi. You knew what I meant.

I would venture to guess the last one you posted with attempted explanations to counter what the other guy wrote.
I disagree!