How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C. : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR
Is it wrong that I have mixed emotions about this?
Is it wrong that I have mixed emotions about this?
Humans were close to extinction
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
Yea, I've heard something similar before. According to a genic study, all humans alive today can be traced back to 2,000 individuals who survived a major natural disaster. Apparently, humans have very little genetic variation relative to other species.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
I'm in no rush to go extinct right now, but I wouldn't worry too much about the planet..in the long run.
When we go, either through self destruction or leaving the planet, earth will have almost 5 billion years to restore balance. Anything we do to harm the earth, is really just causing ourselves harm.
When we go, either through self destruction or leaving the planet, earth will have almost 5 billion years to restore balance. Anything we do to harm the earth, is really just causing ourselves harm.
Blobbenstein
.......
Calliegirl
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 5,816
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
It's a shame any one survived. I can't imagine what a wonderful place the Earth could have become without us on it.
My father read something saying that a nuclear war would knock Earth off its axis. We don't honestly know at this point though.
Blobbenstein
.......
a nuclear war wouldn't do anything to the Earth's orbit or axis, in the same as a fly couldn't knock an elephant over.
yakherder
老外
Only one way to find out. Who's up for an experimental nuclear war? All for the purpose of academic advancement, of course.
I remember hearing/reading something about this, but I might be wrong... there was an article about how there were a comparatively small number of humans living in what is now South Africa, surviving on root vegetables and shellfish, among other things, and we all descended from them. But I don't remember it having anything about a massive eruption or ice age at the time, so maybe that was referring to something else.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
If there was ever a full scale nuclear war, the last thing the survivors would have to worry about is a slight change in the earths orbit.
yakherder
老外
1st worry would be grabbing my smartphone. I could get a lot of likes for a video of a nuke.
Blobbenstein
.......
I don't think there would be a slight change in the orbit...well very very slight..the only reactive 'mass' would be the light, and other EM radiation given off by the explosions, into space.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
We know. Because earth has helpfully shown that it has survived far larger explosions than we're capable of.
Current nuclear stockpile of all nations combined: 5,000 megatons.
Largest volcanic explosion that we know of: 240,000 megatons.
Largest astroid impact that we know of: 100,000,000 megatons.
We're small fish.
Mr Crunchy
Forum Legend
What concerned me is that the near-extinction was due to a supervolcano. There is one in Yellowstone, Wyoming that is due for eruption fairly soon. When it does, pretty much all of the United States west of the Mississippi will be covered in lava and ash.
Could you then explain what happens regarding climate change if a nuclear war happens? A nuclear war has never happened, and therefore it's all a guess as to what the results will be.
yakherder
老外
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Well, earth wouldn't be blown off its axis, that's for sure.
As for the results of climate change, it's like saying "how will I get injured if I have an accident?" There's too many variables. How big of a war? What are the targets? Where's the location?
Even if you know that, there's the problem that global climate models are still a pretty young part of science. And they are far more mature than speculation on what would happen during a nuclear exchange - which is, of course, entirely still theoretical. Its interesting to note that a few scientists thought that the Iraqis burning the oil wells in the first Gulf War would be similar to the effects of a nuclear exchange - and that an effect similar to nuclear winter would follow. These scientists included some big names like Sagan. But the fires didn't loft soot up into the stratosphere, and thus didn't have an appreciable effect on the global climate. Would the fires from a nuclear exchange be similar? Or not?
We can't predict what would happen. Even if we could, we couldn't predict the effects. Our paleoclimate knowledge is lacking - we can't agree what caused the Little Ice Age (or even if it was global). We can't really tell the results from meteor impacts. About the best we have is that Philippine volcano in 1991 - and its results, while measurable, didn't really have an appreciable effect on global human activity. There's also Krakatoa erruption - that correlates with colder temperatures, which we *think* is caused by the eruption (and we have a plausible mechanism to explain it), but we obviously can't be sure.
As a matter of principle though, I'd recommend avoiding any nuclear exchanges.
But in regards to the earth and its axis, nuclear weapons have nowhere near the energy of meteor impacts that the earth has survived without orbital changes.
Similar threads
