On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:06:15 -0500 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vorl Bek <vorl....@antichef.com> wrote: > > > > So 1500 years ago a rock falling into the ocean caused a couple of cold > > years, about the equivalent of the Tambora explosion of 1815. European > > civilization survived that with nary a hiccup. > > > > If it had hit land (30 percent chance) it would have caused worse crop > > failures . . . ; still, our European civilization today, with its abundance > > of food and fuel, would sail through it like it was a summer breeze. > > > The object was roughly 200 m in length. No, the article says it was 300m in length and caused the equivalent of the 1815 Tambora explosion. As noted in the article, if a 300 m > object -- somewhat bigger -- were to hit land, No, that was the one that hit 5000 years ago and was a kilometer in length. it would have the force of > roughly 20,000 Hiroshima bombs and it would destroy an area the size of > France. That's ~400 MT, or 10 times the size of the Tsar Bomb, the largest > thermonuclear bomb in history. The shock wave would be spread over a much > larger area than the Tsar Bomb, the way today's meteor was. > > I would not call that sailing through like a summer breeze. I would not either, but I was talking about the 300m pebble that was the equivalent of Tambora. > > If the 1908 Tunguska meteor had struck a city, it would have completely > destroyed it. Even the largest city such as London, Paris or New York > would have been completely leveled. So what? With 70 percent of the world ocean, and most of the rest NOT London, Paris or New York, in fact with most of the rest pretty much empty, should we be in anguish over the possibility? > > > > > "much of a continent would be leveled; years of winter and mass > > starvation would ensue." > > > > It sounds like gross exaggeration . . . > > > I do not think you know enough about this to judge whether that is gross > exaggeration or not. True, and maybe the author really can estimate what a 1k rock can do when it hits earth at x-thousand mph. > In fact, I get the impression you are jumping to > conclusions about a subject you know nothing about, and dismissing the > opinions of scientific experts who have spent years studying these > subjects. People often do that with cold fusion and with global warming. It > irks me. The article isn't as scary to me as it is to you: 1. There was a Tambora-like rockfall 1500 years ago. And the next Tambora was in 1815, 1400 years later. Why the heck should I be worrying that another Tambora will hit me in the head tomorrow? And, as I said, European civilization would hardly notice it. 2. There was a super-Tambora 5000 years ago. 5000 years ago. And I am supposed to be worried that another one will hit in a few years or decades? I see she talks about big craters under the ocean, but don't we need more than such vague references to start sucking money out of taxpayer's pockets? > > > > > ; and anyway, if the thing hit > > 5000 years ago, when did the previous one hit? > > > We don't know. We should find out. More to the point, we should find out > when the next one is likely to hit. > > > > > Was it 10000 years previous, 20,000? Should I lie awake nights about this? > > > > No, you should advocate sensible scientific research aimed at preventing it. If the last big one was 5000 years ago, my statistical intuition tells me that we have at least a couple hundred years before the next big one hits, and by that time we will have the ability to create an effective 'spaceguard'. > > > > > This speculation strikes me as chicken little stuff, and not to > > be concerned about. > > > > You strike me as someone who has no qualifications whatever to hold that > opinion.
