Slashdot Mirror
Yellowstone Super-Eruption Threat Debunked
GennyCream writes "The Internet has been all a-buzz with tin-foil-hat geeks have been in a tizzy over supposed government coverups of a soon-to-come super eruption in Yellowstone (especially see The Shadow Confederacy, but also Rense.com, or BlackVault for entertaining examples). I found an article on ATSNN.com (the Above Top Secret News Network) that cut the paranoia with the proverbial knife and went straight to the source. Their interview with USGS Yellowstone scientists covers all the angles and should inspire the mad-hatters to find something else to fear (for now)."
Well, my father in law follows the geology of the Yellowstone basin fairly closely because of his job as a park Ranger up in Grand Teton (his dream retirement job). In all the conversations I have had with him, he has said nothing of this. To add to that, he lives just outside Jackson Wyoming (Cheny's undisclosed location interestingly enough or at least I've seen him around the Jackson area a number of times) and one would think he would be out of there had there been any dramatic increases in geologic activity indicative of an eruption or large scale animal deaths as alleged in these rumors.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
There is certainly a chance of a super volcano going up from Yellowstone, and the timescale where that is likely is longer than all of human history. There's an interesting book called Yellowstone Farwell by Wyoming geologist Wanyne Sutherland and his wife Judy (selling well in Wyoming anyway...see at http://www.yelllowstonefarewll.com). I live in Wyoming and worry about terrorism at a greater level than volcanoes (and I recall a Time magazine essay saying that all Americans could do to alleviate their worry over terrorism was to move to Wyoming!).
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
"The Internet has been all a-buzz with tin-foil-hat geeks have been in a tizzy over supposed government coverups of a soon-to-come super eruption in Yellowstone (especially see The Shadow Confederacy, but also Rense.com, or BlackVault for entertaining examples)."
You seem to have forgotten this gem.
I got your tin foil hat right here!
Sigs are for losers
There is a lots of information concerning the actual research being conducted.
The threat of a massive eruption is exaggerated in the articles, without a doubt. There is, however, a lot of interesting scientific data presented.
The interview points out that since the last caldera-forming eruption, which was 640,000 years ago, there have been 30 smaller eruptions. That's an average of one eruption per 21,000 years. According to the USGS, the last eruption at Yellowstone was 70,000 years ago. It's not unreasonable to suggest that another eruption could occur in the near future.
As for the threat of a massive caldera-forming eruption. the same USGS site reports that they tend to have occurred every 600,000 to 800,000 years over the past 2.1 million years. Since the last such eruption was 640,000 years, it's not unreasonable to suggest that such an eruption could occur within the next 200,000 years if the pattern continues. The threat of such an eruption is overplayed in some of the articles cited in the story, but is not completely unreasonable.
Note, also, that there aren't any records of what happened the last time Yellowstone had a massive eruption. Such an eruption has not been observed.
Also, the government does have a tendency to downplay threats while they are still being investigated.
I tend to think the questions are reasonable but exaggerated. But if the government downplays stuff, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I just don't think people ought to be ridiculed when it's easy enough just to debunk them with the facts if they really are wrong.
Even when a volcano erupts next in Yellowstone it is unlikely to be of a massive scale like the rare caldera forming events of the past. Yellowstone is an exceptional geologic feature, and the spectacular geysers, hot springs, mud pots, etc... are all due to the presence of molten rock at unusually shallow levels beneath the park. If, however, you look at the size and frequency of past eruptions, then combine that with present observations, it's clear that the risk of another catastrophic caldera forming event in our lifetimes is very low.
Smaller eruptions are, however, much more common. There are various sorts of volcanic events that might qualify as "smaller eruptions," and it really wouldn't surprise me to see one in my lifetime.
Steam explosions seem like the most likely candidate for the next eruption. Small ones occur every few years. These can blast steam and scorching hot rock high in to the air, but don't result in the actual eruption of lava -- they occur far above any molten rock. These events occur when groundwater, heated from below, flashes catastrophically to steam. Doing so entails the liquid water rapidly increasing in volume, and in order to make room for itself, rock (as well as trees, people, bison, and anything that might get in the way) may be excavated from the vicinity of the explosion. There's a bulge underneath Yellowstone lake that some people speculate is caused by the accumulation of hydrothermal gases and that may possibly represent the future site of a steam explosion (although, again, that's just speculation at this point), and part of Norris Geyser Basin has been temporarily closed because of concern that it could be the site of a future steam explosion -- the ground there recently heated up to around 200 degrees F. Generally, however, steam explosions are hard to predict, and they're also usually fairly localized and fleeting events that present relatively little hazard.
There are also several dozen non-caldera forming volcanoes in the caldera and immediate vicinity. Most of these erupted shortly before or after the last giant eruption that occurred (roughly) 640,000 years ago. Keep in mind, however, that shortly is relative: most were spaced several thousand years apart. The last one erupted about 70,000 years ago.
The nice thing about volcanic eruptions is that they usually give some indication that they're coming before any eruption actually occurs. Warning signs can include: ground inflation over wide areas which can be detected by tiltmeters, GPS, and satellite inferometry; changes in groundwater chemistry; earthquake swarms that indicate magma moving a depth; volcanic tremors; and changes in volcanic gas discharge from the ground (this effect can be observed at Long Valley Caldera in California where CO2 escaping from magma has killed many trees, and is present in high enough concentration to be dangerous for humans in some situations). Yellowstone is, furthermore, very well monitored and to date there is no increase in bckground activity to indicate any volcanic eruption is imminent.
Human history has never recorded a giant caldera forming eruption like those that have occurred at Yellowstone and Long Valley Caldera, we know they are very infrequent events, and also know that much smaller events are much, much, more common. The largest eruptions should also give many of the same kinds of warning signs that other eruptions give, and probably many more. Again, it's also worth noting that past such eruptions at Yellowstone were prefaced for thousands of years by smaller eruptions.
I used to live in Wyoming, and I still have some relatives there. Back when I was in middle school there, we learned all about the Yellowstone Cauldera; Wyoming school kids are lucky in that the state is so geologically diverse and interesting.
Anyhow, I'm just establishing that I have some tiny bit of credibility, despite the fact that I admit I'm not a fully-trained or professional geologist.
I think, aside from the tinfoil-hat bent, the issue here boils down to two questions: Is Yellowstone a danger? And, Is the danger immediate?
To the first, the answer is a powerful yes. Were Yellowstone to blow like it has before, there's a pretty good chance most of the human population would be wiped out.
To the second question, the answer is: probably not. Overall, the geothermal activity in Yellowstone has been cooling down in the last fifty years. There is an increase in geothermal activity North of Yellowstone, but I've been informed that it's new and a relatively small danger. The theory is, in regards to that, that the hot spot which has caused all the fun activity in Yellowstone is simply moving northward.
As for the rest... well, you can draw your own conclusions.
(Apologies for any errors or typos; I'm literally half asleep as I type this.)
~UP
Eat the Path.
Thera/Santorini 1460BC which wiped out the Minoan Civilization, and is believed to be one of the possible basis for the Egyptian Plague of Darkness.
While both Krakatoa eruptions were extremely large, they are not nearly on the scale of the giant Yellowstone & Long Valley eruptions.
...And the Yellowstone eruption mentioned above was bigger!
The Long Valley explosion, which occurred ~760,000 years ago was significantly larger. Ash from that eruption was discovered as far away as Nebraska! It is theorized that the sound of the eruption was heard around the world, and that the sky was filled with ash for years afterwards. At the time of its eruption, the mountain was estimated at over 14,000 feet. Now the caldera rests at about 7,500 feet (above sea level)...of course, there has been many more eruptions since then
Doh!
Actually I bike to work. It's good exercise, fun, cheap, and saves the environment. The drawback is, I figure it's probably around ten to a hundred times more likely (per mile) to be fatal.
Actually only about 4 times, from what I understand.
Bill Bryson wrote a book I'm reading which is an excellent general question answerer: "A Short History of Nearly Everything" Amazon
It goes into craters, and also the Yellowstone super volcano. It's pretty interesting and fun to read (as are all of his books!)
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
No way it's that soon. It's still coming up too fast for that - it's not going to be like hitting a wall, as individual wells will go dry at different times, we'll gradually start tapping the stuff that's kind of hard to drill, before moving on to the stuff that's really hard to drill.
There are also other options - someone mentioned bio-fuels. In addition, coal, of which we have absolutely assloads, can be treated chemically to yield gasoline and such. This program was started after the 70's embargo and actually got pretty far, but it cost about $2/gallon (can't remember what year those dollar estimates were pegged to), which wasn't competitive then. By the late 80's, we got complacent because oil was cheap again, and funding was cut for such programs.
Ultimately, if we had to, I bet a coal-based fuel wouldn't cost more than $2.50-$3 a gallon today if it were scaled up. Not pleasureable, no - but we're nearly paying that now in LA, and I believe the cost is currently higher than that in Europe now.
So no, I don't think the "doom and gloom" scenario will come to pass that easily.
"C: that we don't have any alternatives at all if we were to run out of oil. Uh ... Coal? Not all that clean but we aren't running out of it. Coal can generate electricity and we can pretty much run anything on electricity rather than combustion. "But all the plastic we use is made from oil", 1: we can recycle what we have. 2: we can make synthetic plastic without oil. 3: Plastic is filling up our landfills anyway, using less probably would be good for us."
Plastic is not sustainably recycleable - it can only tolerate a generation or two of recycling before it cannot be recycled again and must be discarded. So at the best, plastic still will fill up our landfills. Glass, steel and aluminum and family can be recycled over and over again. Of course, the greater energy needed in recycling and shipping heavier non-plastic products notwithstanding...
is that it takes 29% more energy to produce than it gives back when used. Two separate studies have shown this. Here's a link:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html
> I really hope we clean up our act and start convincing Mother Earth that we are worth keeping around. I don't want to be buried in volcanic ash along with some dinosaurs she didn't like anymore.
I think what would be much more useful is to teach people that nature doesn't want anything. "Nature" is a word that is basically "Earth." You might as well try to convince a tree to dance the Hokey-Pokey. If a volcano is going to blow, it is going to blow regardless of anything mankind does. All volcanic activity is underground, in sealed caverns (if it were not sealed, there would be no pressure -> no eruption), so anything we do to the environment up here affects it in no way whatsoever.
Therefore, I conclude that eco-nuts (not calling you one) are wasting their time, as we'll probably be wiped out by something over which we have no control before we kill ourselves (except possibly for war, which can kill us all with almost no warning).
I don't deny that it's possible for crop prices to fluctuate, but generally I'd say that food prices are more stable in first world countries than gas prices. And the kinds of crops you are thinking of are mostly premium fruits and vegetables which are substantially more weather sensitive that what we are talking about here. Weeds, grasses and other low production cost cellulose sources can grow pretty much anywhere, barring serious dryness or "dustbowl" phenomena.
Krakatoa was an enormous eruption. I don't doubt that...however the Long Valley/Yellowstone events (which did occur in pre-history times) were _much_ larger
:-)
For example, the URL you listed menioned that about 21 cubic km of "crud" was ejected in the Krakatoa eruption. This URL states "About 760,000 years ago a cataclysmic volcanic eruption in the area blew out 150 cubic miles of magma (molten rock) from a depth of about 4 miles beneath the Earth's surface." If Google's math is correct, that is about 625 cubic km of "crud"
IIRC, Yellowstone's Giant eruption was somewhere around 1,000 cubic km in size!
Doh!