Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would the world be in a massive economic crisis - with the travel and leisure industries being at a standstill, and non-essential businesses and institutions being closed left, right and centre - if, instead of the current coronavirus pandemic, there would have been a Krakatoa or Tambora type of volcanic eruption just recently? How would it be similar to, and different from, what we're experiencing now with the Covid-19 outbreak the world over?
Alternatively, in the aftermath of a "big one" earthquake that would have recently destroyed a populous and economically important area like California or Japan, would the impacts on the world have been similar to what we're going through now with Covid-19?
No it wouldn't, there is no logical comparison here. Loss of life for any of these natural events could be (and have been) terrible. But in the end these natural disasters are localized, while a pandemic is global.
Even in a financial critical area such as California that might dissapear when the supposed "big one" hits, loss of life and impact would obviously be staggering. But there are contingency and disaster recovery plans in place to get up and running again quickly for all the manufacturing, personnel, and assets lost. My company has them in place. What is the contingency plan when the entire globe is impacted? It becomes more difficult.
I see you also expanded your topic to talk about natural events that have global impact (like an ash cloud). Those are much too specialized to classify. You have to take one at a time - hey an asteroid can hit the earth, aliens could invade, the zombie apocylpse can begin. Not that we are getting into the impossible here, but by expanding your topic in the way you did, it makes it too difficult to answer except to take it case by case. Start your topic over and discuss a volcano that causes a global ash cloud and limit it to that.
No it wouldn't, there is no logical comparison here. Loss of life for any of these natural events could be (and have been) terrible. But in the end these natural disasters are localized, while a pandemic is global.
Even in a financial critical area such as California that might dissapear when the supposed "big one" hits, loss of life and impact would obviously be staggering. But there are contingency and disaster recovery plans in place to get up and running again quickly for all the manufacturing, personnel, and assets lost. My company has them in place. What is the contingency plan when the entire globe is impacted? It becomes more difficult.
I see you also expanded your topic to talk about natural events that have global impact (like an ash cloud). Those are much too specialized to classify. You have to take one at a time - hey an asteroid can hit the earth, aliens could invade, the zombie apocylpse can begin. Not that we are getting into the impossible here, but by expanding your topic in the way you did, it makes it too difficult to answer except to take it case by case. Start your topic over and discuss a volcano that causes a global ash cloud and limit it to that.
Let's just say, then, that a massive volcanic eruption at minimum like Krakatoa would have a much more global impact than "big one" earthquakes, even though on the immediate level, earthquakes kill more people locally (at or near the site of the event) than volcanoes. When I talk about global impacts of massive volcanic eruptions, they sure rival those of pandemics, though instead of lots of people getting sick and (potentially) dying and the attendant quarantines and social distancing, we're talking about ash falls, crop failures, and changing weather patterns for at least a couple of years. I hope that sounds right?
Let's just say, then, that a massive volcanic eruption at minimum like Krakatoa would have a much more global impact than "big one" earthquakes, even though on the immediate level, earthquakes kill more people locally (at or near the site of the event) than volcanoes. When I talk about global impacts of massive volcanic eruptions, they sure rival those of pandemics, though instead of lots of people getting sick and (potentially) dying and the attendant quarantines and social distancing, we're talking about ash falls, crop failures, and changing weather patterns for at least a couple of years. I hope that sounds right?
Yeah, good question then.
What you are talking about is equivalent to a nuclear winter scenario. These have occured in the past, many times before man made an appearance. Arguably, they wiped out the dinosaurs. Maybe Tambra volcano from 1815 is a better example than Krakatoa. From the Tambra volcano - there were indeed crop failures, food riots in Europe, starvation, and increased illness, increased death. However they were also just concluding an extend period of warfare as well (Napoleonic wars) that contributed. Also, technology has developed - more efficient, able to use artificially lighting and climate, etc.
How bad it can get with a volcano? Theoretically it can end all life, remember man has only been on this planet for a small period of the earth's existence. We just don't know. However there was also what was labeled as a "supervolcano" about 75,000 years ago, probably the biggest that man knows about that apparantly leveled forests in entire continents, effected the climate for 1,000 years. Killed a significant population of early man, but there were survivors (causing what is know as the "Toba Catastraphe Theory of Population Bottleneck" in terms of human evolution. So, there wasn't much society then, just hunter-gatherer groups, but you can imagine what would happen now. But, humans still survive, they simply evolve.
^ Well it's not an easy question to answer, it's a classic "apples vs oranges" kind of thing. Also let me add another kind of natural disaster to this which is as "studied" as the effect of massive volcanoes:
Heaven forbid that we would have a solar storm on that scale (the strongest in the past 200 years) at the same time as this pandemic. At least in this pandemic, we've increasingly relied on online videoconferencing tools like Zoom to attempt to replicate some of the in-person connections we've lost, and we've enjoyed the comforts of home, which rely heavily on electricity - and of course, hospitals taking care of the more seriously ill coronavirus patients have quite heavily relied on electricity. If we had a massive geomagnetic storm like the one in 1859 on top of coronavirus, we'd be even more in real, deep trouble than we have been from the coronavirus alone.
There may be some resemblances to natural disasters (remember, exactly 10 years ago, in spring of 2010 air traffic across Europe stopped due to a not-that-big volcanic eruption in Iceland) but the pandemic is many times worse because it is global and unlike an earthquake or volcanic eruption that lasts for months.
There may be some resemblances to natural disasters (remember, exactly 10 years ago, in spring of 2010 air traffic across Europe stopped due to a not-that-big volcanic eruption in Iceland) but the pandemic is many times worse because it is global and unlike an earthquake or volcanic eruption that lasts for months.
But with a volcanic eruption, it really depends on the magnitude and intensity of the eruption. Krakatoa's eruption in 1883 was many times more powerful than Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland in April 2010 (and yes, considerably more powerful than Pinatubo's in 1991), and Tambora's in 1815 was far more powerful even than Krakatoa's. The latter two eruptions have worldwide impacts far beyond the immediate local/regional impacts of a volcanic eruption that you're having in mind. In the case of a Krakatoa or Tambora repeat, there potentially are crop failures (and very high food prices, and maybe even famine in the least developed countries, as a consequence), and cooler summers and colder winters to look forward to a few to several years down the road. Just look at Tambora and the Year Without a Summer.
A more appropriate framework for comparing pandemics and volcanic eruptions is that this coronavirus pandemic and the Spanish Flu are to the Asian (1957) and Hong Kong (1968) flus, swine flu (2009), SARS (2003), MERS (2012-14), Ebola (2014), polio (1940s and early 1950s), etc. what Tambora and Krakatoa are to Pinatubo, Mt. St. Helens, Santa Maria (Guatemala), Eyjafjallajökull, etc. In other words, one set is more severe (at least in potential) than the other and one set has more profound global repercussions than the other.
The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 is considered to be one of the most significant in recorded history. It caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. But not only that, it changed the earth’s climate. The effects of the volcano were felt globally. 1816 was called the year with no summer.
The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 is considered to be one of the most significant in recorded history. It caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. But not only that, it changed the earth’s climate. The effects of the volcano were felt globally. 1816 was called the year with no summer.
This is why my original question bears repeating, with some minor revisions:
Given that the world has been so much more globalized and interconnected since the 19th century, and safety and public health precautions have greatly improved since then: Would the world be in a massive economic crisis - with the travel and leisure industries being at a standstill, and non-essential businesses and institutions being closed left, right and centre - if, instead of the current coronavirus pandemic, there would have been a Krakatoa or Tambora type of volcanic eruption just recently (not something along the lines of Pinatubo or other less intense eruptions)? How would it be similar to, and different from, what we're experiencing now with the Covid-19 outbreak the world over? Would such an event be labelled "unprecedented" just like the coronavirus outbreak has been labelled "unprecedented"?
This is why my original question bears repeating, with some minor revisions:
Given that the world has been so much more globalized and interconnected since the 19th century, and safety and public health precautions have greatly improved since then: Would the world be in a massive economic crisis - with the travel and leisure industries being at a standstill, and non-essential businesses and institutions being closed left, right and centre - if, instead of the current coronavirus pandemic, there would have been a Krakatoa or Tambora type of volcanic eruption just recently (not something along the lines of Pinatubo or other less intense eruptions)? How would it be similar to, and different from, what we're experiencing now with the Covid-19 outbreak the world over? Would such an event be labelled "unprecedented" just like the coronavirus outbreak has been labelled "unprecedented"?
I think you should outline more details of this eruption, because its location and scale make a huge difference in destructiveness.
The general idea of whether or not there can be a volcanic eruption that rivals COVID-19 in destructiveness is yes though, since at the worst it’d include at least a year of significant and fairly rapid climate change on top of its potential massive direct destruction depending on where it happens.
I think you should outline more details of this eruption, because its location and scale make a huge difference in destructiveness.
The general idea of whether or not there can be a volcanic eruption that rivals COVID-19 in destructiveness is yes though, since at the worst it’d include at least a year of significant and fairly rapid climate change on top of its potential massive direct destruction depending on where it happens.
It would depend on the severity of the eruption. We've not had a supervolcano erupt in recent times and all events have been very localized. This pandemic has global reach already, though it's true toll remains uncertain as it's an ongoing event. It's already having a ton of economic ramifications, that are being felt.
If there's one area where a volcanic eruption/earthquake can cause more harm, it's in the material realm. Buildings collapse, bridges fall... As it stands to reason, this virus won't be able to cause structural damage to infrastructure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
