SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A NASA thought experiment called, Defending Human Civilisation From Supervolcanic Eruptions, stated that a supervolcano eruption was more likely to happen in the future than an asteroid hitting the earth, according to the Daily Star. It said: “Supervolcanic eruptions occur more frequently than a large asteroid or comet impacts that would have a similarly catastrophic effect to human civilization.” Jet Propulsion Laboratory researchers found that collisions from asteroids which are more than 2km in diameter occurred “half as often as supervolcanic eruptions”.
[...]Yellowstone Caldera[*] is classed as a supervolcano which erupted 60,000 years ago and again 60,000 years before that.
Although there is no guarantee, if the volcano follows the same pattern then it is now due for another eruption.
Researchers have found that if a supervolcano like Yellowstone did erupt, then a “volcanic winter” would ensue which could surpass the “amount of stored food worldwide”.
People living on another continent would not be spared from the aftermath of a supervolcanic eruption.
[*] Wikipedia entry on the Yellowstone Caldera (aka Supervolcano).
The referenced NASA document — Defending Human Civilization From Supervolcanic Eruptions (pdf) — is less sensational; here is the abstract from the paper:
Large volcanic eruptions greater or equal to a magnitude 8 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (i.e., supervolcanic eruptions) eject >10 15 kg of ash and sulfate aerosols, sufficient to blanket sizeable fractions of continents and create a regional or global "volcanic winter." Such events could seriously reduce worldwide agricultural production for multiple years, causing mass famine. Supervolcanic eruptions occur more frequently than large asteroid or comet impacts that would have a similarly catastrophic effect to human civilization, especially now that many asteroid orbits have been mapped. We assess whether future supervolcanic eruptions could be dampened, delayed, or prevented by engineering solutions.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 10 2019, @04:14PM (1 child)
Copper wires I'll accept as a legitimate claim. Steel, however, has a much higher melting point than do the original iron ores.
No, the original ores aren't where they were dug out, and the pit mines are so deep that they're inaccessible without powered pumps.
That said, it might be possible to re-purpose stainless steel cutlery. And there's still some sterling sliver. But it's spread around in lots of separate places, not concentrated in ore bodies. For the stainless steel that's probably no problem, there the problem is that you won't be able to melt the pieces together. So it depends on how long the recovery takes. If it can be started within a century (most unlikely after anything really major) then there shouldn't be a problem. If it's five generations later, all the background knowledge will be gone forever, and the stainless steel will just be hammered into usable small shapes. Nothing large.
Also, supplies of coal and oil are gone. Not totally, but in any way accessible without the use of power. So you're back to wood. Ceramics will be the top of the development. Possibly at some point someone will build a huge lens or mirror and use that to power a furnace, but why would they? The knowledge that metals melt would be gone. (Well, there is an answer to that one, kilns use really high temperatures to produce advanced ceramics like china. But it's an "outside chance", less likely than the discovery of vulcanized rubber.
So I guess it all depends on the size of the disaster one is contemplating. But a five year famine isn't going to be easy to survive, and the population is likely to drop to less than 1/10th of it's current size (probably much less). And the survivors won't be concentrated. I expect that the best chance for survival is some island culture that survives by fishing and doesn't depend much on power. The question is how much "technical" knowledge would they have in the first place. (Building boats and fishing involves lots of technical knowledge in the wider sense, but not usually in the sense of metallurgy, electronics, chemistry, etc. Or even the scientific method [though even some scientists seem to have trouble with that one].)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 10 2019, @08:27PM
>Steel, however, has a much higher melting point than do the original iron ores.
A fair point, however, steel is actually purified iron - melt it and add more carbon and it becomes an iron alloy again. There are some other impurities added in many alloys, but carbon is the big one for most alloys, and most alloys (such as stainless) can be denatured far more easily than they can be melted (Ever seen a rusty stovepipe? The originally stainless steel got too hot due to a chimney fire). https://www.quora.com/Can-you-turn-steel-back-into-iron [quora.com]
Also, rust doesn't much care about most alloys, and is basically extra pure iron ore.
>No, the original ores aren't where they were dug out
I didn't say they were where we found them, I said they were where we left them - in scrapyards, landfills, and cities. I suppose I should have said "metals" rather than ores, since the impurities have been removed, but I thought my point was clear nonetheless.
>Also, supplies of coal and oil are gone
Not remotely - we've got reserves to power us for at least another century or two, though the environmental price of actually using them would be high. But if civilization collapses they may as well be, since the remaining reserves are mostly inaccessible without modern technology.
>So you're back to wood. Ceramics will be the top of the development.
Why. Charcoal is easy to make from woody biomass, and while it doesn't burn quite as hot as coal, it will get the job done for most metallurgical purposes. Even if you can't easily get steel hot enough to melt, it will soften the same as copper and aluminum do at much lower temperatures, making the fact that the problem is the temperature limitations of the forge readily apparent - just as presumably happened the first time around with iron.
> and the population is likely to drop to less than 1/10th of it's current size (probably much less)
Agreed. I'd lean towards *much* less - perhaps 1/1000th or less - after all, a megadisaster doesn't just hurt humans, it brings the entire global ecosystem to its knees, and it will likely take centuries if to recover.