Hey babe, wake up. A new human-created, extinction-level event just dropped.

Lol it did a pretty good job. I was hoping someone would finish it.

So three North Americans walk into a bar at the top of the mountain.

The first guy walks up to the bartender and says, "

I understand what you’re saying. I’m just saying it’s relevant because the article and underlying research article are ultimately about increased volcanic activity at the site of a supervolcano. The purpose of their research was to establish what was underlying volcanic activity that might indicate an eruption from other cause of emissions.

Also, noting how destructive supervolcanoes would hypothetically be is relevant just because it’s crazy.

It’s talking about how those small-scale emissions indicate higher risk of super-volcanic eruption, which is the part of the topic of the third section of the article and is the implicit concern throughout the article.

In fact, the entire point of the article is to discuss how analyzing these emissions can be used to determine if it’s simply the “dissolution of calcite in the surrounding rocks” or if it is “traced back to underground magma,” allowing geologists to determine if volcanic activity and eruption risk is increasing. This data was used to raise the “warning level” of the area from green to yellow.

Yeah, it would mostly be the sulfur and volcanic winter. And the famine.

The article is talking about supervolcanoes, and you’re talking about regular volcanic eruptions. I’m clarifying the difference in magnitude.

I don’t think you’re accounting for the massive difference in scale when considering a super-volcanic eruption. It would cause global famine and a massive die-off of most species including humans. If Yellowstone went off, for instance, we would be living under volcanic winter for at least a decade. It would release something like 1,000 gigatons of CO2, which would be roughly equivalent to all human caused CO2 since the industrial revolution, and it would do it all at once.

By way of example, the Toba supervolcano was so devastating and caused so much death it literally created a pronounced genetic bottleneck in the history of human genome.

Have you considered why Poland doesn’t do anything unless the US allows it? When the command to jump is issued by NATO, Poland asks the US military “how high?” NATO is an extension of US global force projection that the EU benefits from through the deterrence the US military offers and by allowing dramatically lower defense-spending allocations to the member states. “NATO” is simply in no position to dictate much of anything to a country that has a defense budget that equates to roughly 40% of the entire planet’s defense spending.

But, hey. Good luck, I hope you’re right. Nevertheless, in terms of hard power, the EU is simply not a superpower on the global stage, especially militarily. If you think the contribution to NATO by the United States is easily dismissed, I think you’ll get the opportunity in the next year or so to see if you’re right. It’s worth noting that the majority of NATO member-state military leaders would strongly disagree with you.

If the United States were to withdraw from NATO, the alliance would face an existential crisis. Despite your vague posturing, the U.S. forms the backbone of NATO’s military power, financial resources, and strategic coherence. The U.S. contributes unparalleled military capabilities, such as advanced technology, global logistics networks, and nuclear deterrence. Without U.S. leadership, NATO would lose its primary deterrent against major threats, particularly Russian aggression, leaving Europe vulnerable and fragmented. Eastern European nations like Poland and the Baltic states, which rely on the U.S. for security guarantees, would face heightened existential threats, exposing NATO’s diminished ability to uphold its core mission of collective defense.

Additionally the absence of U.S. leadership would render NATO’s operations ineffective and its credibility irreparably damaged on the global stage. No other NATO member has the capacity to fill the void left by the U.S., either militarily or diplomatically. The alliance’s cohesion relies on the U.S.’s ability to unify diverse member states around shared goals and put power, funds, and assets behind it, something no European power can replicate. This would embolden adversaries, destabilize the European continent, and undermine decades of transatlantic security cooperation. In essence, NATO without America would become a hollow shell—an alliance in name only.

The subtext here is brutally simple: Putin knows Trump is willing to withdraw from NATO, taking 70% of its defense budget with him, if Putin’s demands aren’t met. At that point, NATO becomes little more than letterhead, and new territorial “realities” manifest regardless of NATO’s protests. Putin’s saber-rattling serves a calculated purpose–he knows the actual foundation of NATO’s power is already compromised through Trump.

Expect this antagonistic posturing from Putin to increase. Trump is already looking for an excuse to leave NATO, and his staff have outlined the executive branch’s unilateral power to do so. Putin’s role, which he’s gleefully accepting, is to provoke NATO into actions that will give Trump his justification for withdrawal.

The withdrawal seems nearly inevitable at this point, especially given Trump’s planned purge of military leadership. While the EU is attempting to plan for this contingency, losing 70% of your military strength is essentially an insurmountable problem for a coalition that has structured its entire defense strategy around U.S. backing.

The numbers here are stark: the U.S. spends four times what all EU member states combined spend on military funding - not just NATO allocations but total military spending. This creates an irrefutable power imbalance within the coalition. When Trump previously threatened withdrawal, NATO’s attempts to develop alternative deterrent strategies went nowhere because the EU simply cannot afford to compensate for a U.S. exit. They essentially did nothing and hoped Biden’s election would solve the problem.

This allowed the EU economy to avoid difficult choices, as making up for a U.S. withdrawal would likely destabilize the European economy. But now they face an impossible dilemma: attempt to compensate for U.S. withdrawal and risk economic crisis, or maintain current spending levels and leave member states critically exposed. Many NATO states, like Estonia, have defense strategies that amount to “try to survive for two weeks until NATO arrives.” Putin understands the leverage he’s gained through Trump and the Republican party’s capture of the federal government. It’s tremendous leverage. The EU should be in crisis mode, but they seem unable or unwilling to fully grasp that U.S. withdrawal from NATO isn’t just possible but probable.

Pay attention. The tectonic plates of geopolitics are shifting beneath our feet.

Why not

“Trump tells Putin not to escalate Ukraine war. Putin says ‘no problem’ and shares a knowing wink with Trump.”

White man mad

Removed by mod

If only we’d only “decimated” wildlife. Alas.

It’s mild hyperbole, but it’s not far off from best-guess speculation. It’s well and regularly covered in IPCC reports. Have at.

That cat is older than dogs.

Sounds rough. Hope you’re OK.

If you’re reading Lemmy at work, you get what you get, buster!

Haters gonna hate

You’re a horrible zionist when that happens. Rule 6 is AIPAC propaganda. I know it’s you, Netanyahu. The “Flying Squid” nickname is a dead giveaway.