First of all, they’ve existed for a lot longer than that, and still going strong. Second, though, comparing humans to dinosaurs is the wrong comparison: For a fair comparison, you should either pick a single species of dinosaur, and compare humans to that, or take a comparable-sized group that includes us (mammals, say, or probably something even more inclusive than that) and compare that to dinosaurs.
All right. So maybe homo erectus to dinosaurs isn’t entirely appropriate. But I was thinking more along the lines of, “What the heck happened to these <insert future species name for us> xyz ago?” type of thing. It was a little bit of a joke.
I do believe in global warming and I do see the evidence for it. But…the world goes through stages. I guess I don’t find the current rise in natural disasters that alarming. Yes, some things are on the rise. Some things are cyclical.
While dry/wet spells in Colorado aren’t natural disasters, it’s kind of how Colorado operates. Look at this blurb:
Some scientists link it to global warming. But…the wet/dry cycles also explain a lot about Colorado’s history that we aren’t sure of (why this group of Native Americans migrated, how this and such a thing could’ve happened, presence of bones and artifacts here and not there, yadda yadda) so I’m not sure that analyzing 60 years of data and calling it global warming is appropriate. Does global warming effect how those wet/dry cycles operate? Totally. But we’d have these cycles with or without global warming.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I’m not worried. We’ve been seeing a lot more of earthquakes - or so it seems. But part of that is advance in media and part of that is just the cycle of things. Earthquakes can also trigger tsunamis and mudslides. The economic aftermath of an earthquake is bigger now - buildings are crushed, people are with out water, higher fatalities due to urban centers and increase in population, etc.
If humans die out, what can I do about it? Nothing.
Averages are not predictors.
If something, call it ND1, averages 10/year, you wanna take a stab at how many will happen next year?
10 might be the worst answer.
3 might be better as a prediction. 17 might be better as a prediction. After a bunch of 13/year, 7 year, etc and you add 'em all up and divide, you might come out with 10/year avg, but that implies that there were periods above and below… and that is normal.
Everything that happens doesn’t spread out nicely and consistently in short periods of time.
.
Actually, assuming ND1 is a Poisson process, 10 is the best answer[sup]*[/sup]. But it only has a ~12.5% chance of being correct. Poisson distribution - Wikipedia. For a Poisson process with average a:
Mode = ceiling(a) - 1,
P[sub]k/sub = e[sup]-a[/sup]a[sup]x[/sup]/x!
Oh, and according to this, we should expect about 150 6+ magnitude earthquakes per year.
[sup]*[/sup]9 if the average is between 9.5 and 10, 10 if the average is between 10 and 10.5, but pretty close regardless.
I understand that, but if you look at short periods of time (and geologically, so much of what we measure is, indeed, short) and look back over the short period of time for which you work the average, it’s my experience that when it comes to predictions, the average is often never even an actual number that ever appeared in the records.
That goes back to the fact that the most probable number of events is still not very likely – about 12.5% for 10 events expected per time period. E.g., if the underlying process should average 10 events per time period, if you have the results for 5 time periods you’ve got about a 50% chance that none of your samples have exactly 10 events. But there’s about a 90% chance that you’d see a 9, 10, or 11 at least once.
Wow. You do know that this a colossal jerkish attitude, right? Millions of people in Bangladesh suffer in the flood season - many die, many more get ill, they loose their possessions, and every centimeter that the sea level rises, every inch of more rain fall, increases that suffering.
Dozens of small islands are sinking right now, and the people for who this is home have to relocate, but because they aren’t white Americans, nobody cares.
There’s quite a difference in magnitude and that’s severly affects people (and nature).
So all those humans affected, you don’t care about them one iota? You are a callous person.
Oh don’t worry, a handful of rich people will continue to live no matter how many mudslides, tsunamis and floods happen. They have the money to get clean water and food no matter what, and to live far away from danger areas. Nothing short of meteors will trouble them, and even than, with advance warning, they will buy their place in a bunker.
Secondly, there’s a lot you can do to avert the worst excesses of global warming, and to help the people affected by it.
And there you have it. What is considered ‘normal’ is a wide array of events/year.
Hey, wanna refrain from personal insult when talking to me? Kay. Thanks.
I didn’t say I didn’t care. I said I wasn’t alarmed. I am not in a state of alarm. Okay? There’s nothing I can do if humanity dies out tomorrow or if there’s an earthquake in Denver.
I grew up running around parks and playing in creeks and climbing trees. I live in Colorado and I’m pretty much one of those enviro-weenies that conservatives complain about. Don’t call me callous. I’m not. I just don’t actively worry about things.
I care. I vote. I’m active in politics. But I pick and choose my issues battles and this isn’t one I lose sleep over. If I worried about everything then I’d be a pathetic neurotic mess.
I resent you assuming that I’m a rich white American who doesn’t care about what happens to brown people far away. :rolleyes: Please don’t make accusations that I’m callous, racist, ignorant, or in any way harmful to the state of humanity because I don’t worry about the world ending.
I mean, I take steps to make sure that I’m safe crossing the street, but I don’t cross the street thinking, omg omg omg I’m gonna get hit by a bus! and start to calculate the odds of that happening.
I’m also a really responsible parent and I think I’m good with child safety, but I don’t spend my days thinking of all the potential things that could harm my child. That is not how I operate.
The** Saving the Earth** campaign requires a worldwide effort. I do my part. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Vote according to your beliefs. Donate. Sign a petition. Don’t waste plastic bags. Have only one child. Whatever.
I just don’t lobby the President to abide by the Kyoto Protocol in my spare time.
Got it?