Hypothetically Is The Earth/world Or Universe Getting Quite Old And Furrowed?

[manuleka 0]

recently there's been quite a lot of natural disasters, tornadoes, earth-quakes resulting in tsunamis, storms and hurricanes... and this happens with in a 5 year time frame up to today!do you guys reckon the earth is getting rugged and old? starting to lose itself?

[yordan 10]

earthquakes and tsunamis are signatures of a young planet, so nothing to worry about. The only problem is human's comfort, but this is a small detail on a planet's timeframe.

[manuleka 0]

earthquakes and tsunamis are signatures of a young planet, so nothing to worry about. The only problem is human's comfort, but this is a small detail on a planet's timeframe.

small detail but with significant effect... we've walk the earth in a very short period yet we seem to exploit it's natural balances exponentially
Edited May 30, 2011 by manuleka (see edit history)

[Quatrux 4]

In my opinion, there always were natural disasters, you only live for lets say 20-40 years and say it seems that there are more and more activity, but I think that if you take a period of lets say 50 000 years, you would find some kind of a pattern. Sun activity is different and it's difference is not in a year or two, but much longer...For example, when dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and if you would appear there with a time machine, you would die, as oxygen consecration in the air was so small you would choke to death, as all the oxygen was used by animals and plants and there were lots of CO2 (much much more when Today) which is good for plants at day, but at night they use the same oxygen.For example, when Vikings ruled in Europe and in North sea spanning the late 8th to 11th centuries, the island which is now called Greenland was GREEN, I mean you could live there normally and not like Today, but it wasn't a problem then.Another factor that information Today is seconds away from you, something happens in the other side of the world, you know about it, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes always were there and will continue to be..Also, there are much more population Today, there is a reason people didn't live in places which is now being populated, due to people knew something can happen there. For example, I see a place, it's plains, nobody lives there and never lived, there were no city from ancient times, so as nothing happened here in the recent 25 years, I will build a new city, yes, a good place, but accidentally after another 25 years it's a flood which destroyed the city...If it wasn't for the new city and it would be simple plains with no population, you wouldn't call it a disaster, nature is like that, think of your self like you would be an ant and your life span as an ant is 90 days or 1 year, so 25 years for them is at least 50 generations and in 50 of our generations a lot can happen...I saw a documentary film about the Black sea in Europe, it used to be much smaller in ancient times, deep in the coast areas there are lots of evidence of people living, camps and tools and etc. Today everything is 100 meters and deeper under the sea, as I understood it could be due to the melting of the last ice age, more rivers flown...In conclusion, natural disasters are always there and you can't blame only people for it, like a lot of whom wants to TAX that and get income for nothing, but being environment friendly is always good, but seems a lot of people think like: "I don't care about what will happen after me, I will be dead"...

[8ennett 0]

Factually speaking, it's not so much that there are more disasters as it is that there are more people spread over larger areas who inevitably encounter such disasters at an increased rate, and increased media coverage and reporting of the ones which do occur. Indeed, it's almost reached the point of the ridiculous, wherein the media have become outright disaster whores in many cases. In terms of overall tectonic activity (earthquakes), things are pretty much baseline, although it is obvious that there will be peaks. There are some regions which have seen a slight uptick in disasters, such as the US having a rather vigorous tornado season, and the flooding in Australia, both attributable to regional climate oscillations. When this happens, it gets reported vigorously... but not so when the opposite happens. How many times do you get reports on the news about places which haven't flooded this season or how a forest fire wasn't started? If you broadcast the same amount of positive things like that alongside the disasters then it would seem more evened out. If you look at the number of natural disasters recorded then there is an increase over the decades purely because of the increase in places keeping records. This is because technology and media specifically has become very sophisticated. Also it is important to understand that a Natural disaster is not a volcano erupting in the middle of the Atlantic ocean but it is when the natural event affect human life by threat to loss of life and damage to goods. Therefore a couple centuries ago an intermediate level tsunami hitting the Sea of Japan may not have been a disaster nor would a rise in the Mississippi river, this is due to the increase in human civilisation and urbanisation in high risk zones.

[manuleka 0]

i guess disasters seems more extreme now due to more people getting involved in it as population and inhabitation rises and spreads rapidlyi also think that some of these disasters are directly or indirectly due to how human civilization shapes and alter the surface of the earth