The Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption was the largest on earth over the last 30 years, according to Research Physical Scientist Brian Brettschneider with the National Weather Service Alaska region.

Brettschneider said that the ash created by the eruption will likely cause a slight cooling effect on the climate, though not as dramatic as short-term climate changes from past volcanic eruptions. In 1815, the climate impacts caused by the Mount Tambora volcanic eruption caused what was called “the year without a summer.”

“What we’re seeing so far is a fairly minor amount of climate altering stratospheric sulfur particles have been detected so far,” Brettschneider said. “A pretty small amount relative to the size of the eruption, so kind of our first initial best guess is that there is going to be a pretty minor climate impact over the next few years.”

Of course, that can only account for the estimates of the blast so far, not any future eruptions that may or may not happen.
Estimates say the Hunga Tonga eruption was equivalent to 2% of the pressure released in the Krakatoa eruption for comparison.

Crap. I wanted to like this video.
Unfortunately this starts with bad information and gets worse...claiming Yellowstone is the largest super volcano....but Yellowstone's biggest eruption was 2,800 km3 almost 9000000 years ago.... Toba in Sumatra erupted 13,200 km3 only 75000 years ago. The most recent Yellowstone eruption was around 640000 years ago and only 1000km3.
Even Taupo ejected 1170km3 in that last super eruption, far more than Yellowstone's most recent.

Where did they get the idea that an ash cloud would spread in every direction evenly?! It's just wrong. The ash cloud would be blown East by upper atmospheric winds...eventually circling the globe but not expanding to the West very far....just like previous eruptions did.

They mention America going abroad to get food in such an event, then go on to mention global dimming, temperature drops, and sulfur contamination damaging crops...but don't put the two together. In such an event, no country on earth could feed it's own population, much less have a surplus to sell to the worst hit area, America. In 1815, the year without a summer caused world wide famine, epidemics, and a halt to shipping because winter ice packs remained through the summer in many places, and crop failures and epidemics continued for years afterwards. That eruption was only 160–213km3 and there were under 1 billion people to feed on the planet.
A large Yellowstone eruption would be 4-10 times that size, with effects being worse and lasting longer, and there are around 8 times as many mouths to feed.
The largest eruption we know of was nearly 100 times the size of Tambora in 1815....and wasn't Yellowstone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

Edit: let's not forget the disruption to airlines for possibly years and interference with satellite signals like we've never experienced....and what does that sulphur do to an already acidic ocean?

I want to know his sources, because they don't jibe with historical records.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.
But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.
It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.
Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.


It may seem unlikely that some super rich individual would want to form his own state but there are alot of crazies out there, I wouldn't think it too far fetched to think that some super rich evangelical christian would want to impose his philosophy on people via the barrel of a gun (or many guns as the case may be).
So if someone did decide to take over with his mercenary army I would have to fight? I don't know about you but i'm a lover not a fighter I would rather pay a small portion of my wages to fund an opposition, a tax if you will. Also Switzerland was invaded and held by Napoleon for a period of 17 years (1798-1815) and it was after that, that the neutrality of Switzerland became internationally recognized not because many of its inhabitants are armed.
I do believe that libertarianism would be a massive step back after all wasn't the world originally libertarian by some definition, no countries, people working for themselves trading with other individuals and groups of individuals. Wouldn't it be better to have a form of government actually run by the people, a direct democracy with no representatives to become corrupt with true accountability, rather than to tear it down and descend into a Somalian style anarchy.

Replaced video embed code with backup #1815 (supplied by member kronosposeidon) - embed replaced by member kronosposeidon.