Slashdot Mirror
Is the Yellowstone Supervolcano About To Blow?
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently, Yellowstone National Park has been having a very unusual number of earthquakes. Many of the most recent tremors have been deeper underground, an ominous sign. Combine that with a rapid rise in elevation over the past three years, and the possibility that earthquake activity from surrounding areas could trigger such an eruption on its own, and you've got the possible warning signs of a supervolcano eruption that would wipe out half to 2/3 of the continental US, plunge global temperatures, and wipe out a very significant chunk of world food sources. Here's a little more info to make your New Year brighter!"
If a volcano erupts, is it considered part of global warming?
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
..it's releasing more energy then its storing. The fact that the park is so geothermally active may be a good thing. It's much better for us if its releasing it's energy slowly rather then all at once. Sort of like a pressure relief valve on a hot water heater.
Well, either that or I'm the type of gambler who believes that bad luck draws more bad luck.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's kind of interesting, how the Slashdot crowd has really nothing meaningful to comment on this possible and according to some scientists "overdue" event.
You have NO friggin' idea what you're talking about. The mega-eruption, if it happens, could be *hundreds of thousands* times bigger than Mount St. Helens. The last super volcano was 75,000 years ago. Light was blocked out all over the world. 35 centimeters of ash fell *2500 miles* away. The global temperature plunged 21 degrees. Mankind was almost extinguished, cut back to only a few thousand. This one...could be *ten times bigger*.
You are forgetting about the volcanic dust in the lungs that will cause a painful death for many. For the most part, the dust is too fine to be filtered out.
I noticed that too, and the local distribution of the cluster does look somewhat like pre-volcanic activity. But if it were the supervolcano. I'd expect activity along the caldera margins. This looks more like something that would result in a new cone or maybe just some new hot springs under the lake.
Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
Probably not, but Yellowstone is a very geologically active area, and my first thought when I hear about new activity there (which comes and goes all the time) is of hydrothermal effects.
There's a lot of water moving around underground there, lots of faults, and lots of heat to drive it. When water or ground moves it can change the pressure in other areas, which may allow existing fractures or faults to slip and cause earthquakes. (The hydrostatic pressure of water and CO2 in cracks in rocks can reduce the effective confining pressure holding the rocks together, so they slip more easily -- understanding fluid effects is critical to understanding earthquakes.)
It seems like every time there's an earthquake, or change in geyser activity, or some ground inflation, or whatever, the popular press starts barking about gigantic volcanic eruptions. Before you pay attention to them, consider that a volcanic eruption requires molten rock to reach the surface. On its way it will have to push lots of existing rock out of the way, and that rock will have to go someplace, probably up, which we would detect as significant ground inflation. On its way volatiles would be released which we would expect to detect as unusual concentrations of various volcanic gases and changes in water chemistry. Significant changes in the behavior of existing geothermal features would also be expected.
We also hear a lot about Yellowstone's largest eruptions, but most eruptions are small.
Interestingly, it has been calculated that as much as almost 1/3 of a cubic kilometer of basalt is intruded beneath Yellowstone each year, which if I recall correctly is similar to the amount entering the magma system beneath Hawaii. In Yellowstone, however, it's trapped beneath a gummy layer of molten silica rich rock which itself eventually erupts and partially accounts for Yellowstone's famously explosive outbursts. The basalt, for its part, tends to cool and solidify underground, over time forming a long track of high density rock that is easy to see on any topographic map of the western US as a feature we call the Snake River Plain, terminating with the Yellowstone Caldera as the head of the snake.
Honestly, this isn't that big of a deal. Even though the Yellowstone caldera is geographically huge, the very fact that it takes half a millennium to build up enough pressure to erupt shows that the geothermal energy is stored under yellowstone very slowly. Or at least the majority of it is released via the geysers and shift in tectonics. If geoscientists had firm evidence that yellowstone had a high chance of eruption within the next 10 years, all we would need to do is build geothermal plants and suck up as much geothermal energy as the mantle puts in. So not the drama.
Mankind was almost extinguished, cut back to only a few thousand.
But this was human civilization from 75,000 years ago, which intellectually and technologically pales in comparison to human civilization today. Wouldn't the advancements we've made since the Toba eruption help us to endure the effect of another mega-eruption?
The three last eruptions were 6000, 700, and 2500 times Mt St Helens 1980 (MSHE), which released 1.67 exajoules (1.673 x 10^18 Joules). According to the esteemed Christopher Thomas 1 Burning Library of Congress (BLoC) is equivalent to 4 petajoules (4 x 10^15 Joules). Converting MSHE to BLoC gives 1 MSHE = 418.25 BLoC. So the last three eruptions were 2509500 BLoC, 292775 BLoC, and 1045625 BLoC, respectively. Since we don't know how big the next eruption will be, let's just assume the mean of the last 3, and that's 1282633.3 BLoCs, or 39% of the total solar energy that strikes the surface of the Earth.
The starving people back then didn't have guns.
And nuclear weapons.
I'd say, no, most of the advancements when we're talking extinction-level events, are going to hurt not help.
It sound like a simple constantly running mister integrated into ventilation systems could easily take care of this given problem. Ancient civilisations didn't have this luxury.
At its worst, there will be an immense disruption of the electrical and telecommunications grid, immense expense from ash damage and removal, alot of immediate deaths and some ash deaths.
You forgot one little detail: Widespread subzero temperatures and no new food anywhere on the planet for at least a year.
Pah, that's nothing. Super eruption my ass. That map should be lit up with hundreds and hundreds of earthquakes around the whole caldera. It's nothing but a small and localized burp.
Wake me up when the earthquake swarm is over the whole area and there is evidence of updoming from clinometers and DGPS monitors.
Just thought I'd post these up again:
Main global earthquake map
List of EQs in the SouthWest
Display of drum recorders for the Southwest
Cheers and Happy New Years!
There is simply too much glass..
Um, since when is half a billion tons 1,000 times greater than 540 million? (I realize they're not your numbers, timeOday)
The Ash fall for one of the bigger past eruptions has been
traced by geologists to be this size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HuckleberryRidgeTuff.jpg
It covers most of 13 states.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Um. So that means one foot of rock over your roof. Can it take it? I believe most roofs can only handle half that amount of volcanic ash, especially if it rains (which it will, typical volcano behaviour).
Bitter and proud of it.
First, if you think all the major nations don't have an operation plan that covers this and all plausible contingencies, you're naive. It's their job and they're good at it.
If Russia nukes the Yellowstone valley, we nuke the Siberian Traps. If you think Global Climate Change is bad, you should see those models. They're bad .
Nuclear submarines will be unaffected by ash, and both sides have them. Tracked vehicles traverse ash just fine. Some nations are prepared with tanks and ships in underground bunkers as well. Remember that we'll be weak with little influence from our national government for five years or more. That means that after at most four years and at least 30 days, our federal government won't have plausible authority. At that point it's every man for himself. They could nuke us then and get nuked back, but what if South America, which is nuke free, chose that moment to invade? Could we push them back with our bogged down infantry? If we wanted to wipe them out, who would we nuke?
At that point we as individuals will choose. Will we choose rightly? I don't know. There are points of history that can't be predicted because the outcome is decided by heroes. That's what "hero" means.
Let's hope this unpleasant contingency does not occur. But let's be prepared for it, just in case.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Your laptop has an acceleration sensor. It can be used to detect earthquakes.
http://qcn-web.stanford.edu/
Bert
Solar power doesn't do you much good when there's enough ash in the air to block out the sun for several weeks or months.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Ugg. The problems with the Somalis are far worse than merely not being "born into relative privilege."
Better them than me. The squeamish will hesitate and die. The strong will live. Choose.
That's fine. Give me your address and approximate location and I'll make sure to include you among the ones I have to kill. Fair enough, isn't it? Remember: There's always someone else stronger than you out there. You're not as tough as you think, and neither am I. Am I tougher than you? I don't know, and neither do you.
How, exactly? I suppose everyone will climb into their roofs with dusters... And that's just for the roofs that are accessible to non-professionals.
Where to? The ash could cover most of North America. And with the transport system completely shut down by ash, no-one's going anywhere. Even if you got somewhere, there wouldn't be enough food as the ash would kill it all.
Depends where you live. I used to do architectural design in a place that routinely required designing the building for 100 lb-per-sq-ft snow loads on the roof, and it wasn't all that far from Denver. Don't know what their building code requires, but people living in the Rockies are used to both heavy loads on the roof and having to shovel them off periodically. Building collapse in the area would not be one of the primary concerns for me.
Modern civilization is a network. It allows us to gain the benefits of economies of scale by having us specialize. These efficiencies makes modern civilization extremely robust with respect to small to medium sized disasters. Local famine is not even noticed by those portions of society which have the money to draw resources from far away.
On the other hand, a disruption large enough to damage our ability to communicate and transport might actually be worse for us than it would be for a more primitive civilization.
Think of people living, say, five thousand years ago. They may trade materials and items over surprisingly long distances, but they are basically self-sufficient. Life his hard, and a large world wide disaster would make that harder, but anybody living in a place where survival is possibly have a good shot. This disruption of trade has practically no effect.
How, think about the effect of the collapse of trade on your ability to survive. Can you build a shelter? Or even build a fire, once matches run out? Can you hunt, grow, or forage enough food to survive? (It's funny how so many people's first thoughts seem to run to guns. Of course guns are useful, but only over the short term.)
I'd posit that modern civilization is vastly more robust in the face of disruption ... up to a point.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'll travel to meet up with some hunter friends of mine who have guns and wilderness survival skills... we'll shoot you and your newly found progressive buddies, eat your vegetables, and have a long pig BBQ
Six weeks, six months?
Guns need powder and ammunition. Lubricating oils. Spare parts.
Although nice firearms aren't needed for game. Besides using firearms I've also hunt with bow and arrows and have trapped wildlife. Though I don't like fish I have woven nets that can be used to fish.
Game becomes hard to find. Edible plants, fruits, nut and berries become hard to find.
Now that depends on the location and population. Even though I live in a major metro area in the north, the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St Paul, on the postage stamp sized lot where I live I can grow 10% of my own food food easily in my garden. Though I started my carrots and radishes late this year, I had enough lettuce and cherry or grape tomatoes for salad every day for a month. I had enough tomatillos for one soup, or salsa, a week for months. There was enough rhubarb for a few sticks a week as well. This spring I'll add blue berries and strawberries. And maybe potatoes and corn. This past growing season I got a bunch of remarks about how well my garden grew and was asked a number of tymes how I was able to grow my plants as big as they did grow. A few said they wanted me to help them on their garden next year. And my growing season is short.
And that's just where I live now. When I lived in Florida I was able to grow enough food for most of the year in my mother's backyard. Preserving food, canning, drying or dehydrating, smoking, and using other methods of preserving food allows the food supply to last longer. I mention each of these because I have done all of them, and have lived in survival situations.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Short answer OK for you?
Yes.
I am, and I've written enough pages on this topic already to not want to write much more unless you're seriously interested.
Yes, there are ways to do it, both on the drawing board and under active development. But there are also significant hazards to doing it precisely here. Read my other replies in this thread (filtering out the ones where I was being funny), and you'll be better informed and could probably work out some of the issues yourself. Bear in mind the old joke that "if we knew what we were doing, we couldn't call it research".
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
What would be in the least bit mysterious about that? That would be as mysterious as a geologist living at 80-several metres above sea level (around 10 m above the approximate wash level of the Haltenbanke Tsunami) on a 1:7 slope (meaning that rainfall runs away and floods some other poor schmuck), in an area that has never been subject to mining (and hence has no mining-related subsidence) and hasn't got enough slope to generate its own solifluction movements. That's as mysterious as the stable boy making a nice profit by betting on the horses that he's training. That's as mysterious as a not very mysterious thing.
If I were a seismologist, I'd be keeping a weather eye on this little lot. I don't see any particular advantage to moving to Africa though - too many people. I've already declined to post my destination, if this gets more "interesting".
mind you, one of my class mates from University did his PhD in seismology ; I might try to find an email address for him, check out where he's living these days. Worth knowing that.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Happy New Year first of all (let's be polite) :)
I live one hour from Yellowstone Lake, which is the center of the latest supervulcanic explosion caldera. I haven't felt any tremors and neither have anyone of the residents here. I have worked in Yellowstone and (as anyone visiting the Old Faithful Visitor Center can see from the seismographer there) Yellowstone has hundreds of micro earthquakes every day. On the other hand, Yellowstone's supervolcano has gone off every 600,000 years or so and the last eruption happened... well... about 600,000 years ago. So, geologically speaking it's time. Will it be 2009? I doubt it. And to prove it to you next summer I'll go scuba diving Yellowstone Lake like many people do.
Okay, I'm seeing two general threads here:
% People who are stupidly calling something like this the end of the world
% People who are stupidly downplaying the threat
This will not be the end of the world. It wasn't the end of life on the planet the last time it happened. We know this.
Now that we got that out of the way, let's be clear here. People seem to think that 35cm of ash is like snow, and that they can handle 35 cm of snow. Here's a hint. Snow eventually melts and is taken back up into the atmosphere or is absorbed into the ground. Water is part of the standard climate cycles we deal with every day.
Ash is not water. Ash does not melt. Ash is fine particles of non-organic solids. If it ends up on your roof, it does not melt off the top of your house, it collapses your roof. Once it is on the ground, it makes a big pile of crap, and then stays there, forever. When you try and plow it or whatever, it will end up in your lungs and choke you.
Pyroclastic flows, magma and all the rest will simply eliminate 13 states. Those 13 states probably produce most of the food in the United States. Even if you evacuate, food supplies would probably be completely exhausted in a few weeks.
After an eruption in the early 1800's we had what was called The Year Without a Summer. Crops failed, people really did starve, and this was just a rather big explosion of a relatively normal volcano. Yellowstone, should it blow, will likely completely eliminate organized agriculture except (if we are incredibly lucky) in the most optimum of places. Those places will might produce food, but not enough for 6-7 billion people. And even if those people were likely to want to export food that they don't have, there would cease to be a transportation infrastructure capable of feeding people across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans.
Most people will die. When they die they will rot. When they rot there will be disease. We'd probably be better off resorting to cannibalism so that we can at least do something with matter that will otherwise breed plague.
There is a saying that we are 24 hours from barbarism at all times. This is true. Even if people do the unexpected and all pitch in to rationally help one another, the infrastructure for most modern civilization will likely be untenable in most of North America and quite possibly elsewhere. There is no modern society without energy sources and the means to get it where it needs to go.
People will survive, but those people who believe that the advances of modern society will soften the blow appreciably fail to understand that our advances have taken most people farther away from the skills that they need to survive, rather than made them safer from this sort of threat. Our technology level could be helpful, but no one has really used it to protect against this sort of threat, and therefore, we would be reduced to what still would work when we get sucker punched by this.
If you point at other lesser volcanic eruptions as proof that its not so bad, you fail to comprehend the scale of the threat. These eruptions are survivable precisely because they are localized. They only remove a little infrastructure locally, but only a few miles away, everyone is fine. An explosion of this magnitude can affect ALL of the infrastructure at the same time, within a very brief amount of time. It is quite simply the same thing as if we launched all of our nuclear weapons at one another at the same time, minus the radiation.
It is bad, mmkay?
Happily, nothing is exploding anytime soon. These fools are just trying to make a buck with some good old fashion alarmist journalism. But, let's be very, very clear. If this did happen, you need to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye unless Jesus loves you and you get taken up in the Rapture. Otherwise, you're dead meat.