Researchers: Global Risk of Supervolcano Eruption Greater Than Previously Though

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers: Global Risk of Supervolcano Eruption Greater Than Previously Though

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 6, 2014 @08:23AM from the big-boom dept.

rbrandis writes "The eruption of a 'supervolcano' hundreds of times more powerful than conventional volcanoes – with the potential to wipe out civilization as we know it – is more likely than previously thought, a study has found. An analysis of the molten rock within the dormant supervolcano beneath Yellowstone National Park in the United States has revealed that an eruption is possible without any external trigger, scientists said."

325 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:27 · Score: 1, Funny

The NSA will be wiped out. Overall, good for mankind
1. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-06 08:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  NSA is on the east coast, Yellowbone will just kill the west coast, and starve the rest of the world a little.
2. Re: Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Gutted. This would have been perfect.
3. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by bob_super · 2014-01-06 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  "Be safe from Yellowstone, move to Mauritius with a container of Twinkies"
4. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-06 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  No, airflow is to the south and east. Mostly would kill the South and the East, anything west of the Rockies will be fine.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
5. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-06 08:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Airflow has little to do with it. That part is what gets leveled by a shockwave. Multidigit gigatons equivalent. The dust layer chokes out most of the worlds' plants for decades, but not all of them. Humanity is adaptable enough to survive as a species even at current tech levels.
6. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by perpenso · 2014-01-06 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, airflow is to the south and east. Mostly would kill the South and the East, anything west of the Rockies will be fine.
  Except for the flaming material falling from the sky in a ballistic trajectory igniting anything remotely flammable.
7. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Wookact · 2014-01-06 09:02 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Libertarian troll immediately proceeds to attempt to hijack the conversation.
8. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-06 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  You're not including the protective smog layer from China
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
9. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-06 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, so shockwaves go through entire mountain ranges? I've got the Rocky Mountains and the Cascade Mountains between me and there. And our own volcano.
  Perhaps you've heard of it? Mount Rainier?
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
10. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  "Adaptation," in this case, means most of humanity will die. There simply won't be enough food for everyone, and even if their was our productive capacity will be completely shot.
  Don't expect this die-off to be random or fair. The strong will wipe out the weak, as always. THAT his how humanity will adapt.
11. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:12 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Mount Rainier wouldn't be a cork in the giant bottle that is Yellowstone.
  Also, sorry you don't understand the level of output from a supervolcano. For a 1/100 scale, go look up Mount Pinatubo.
12. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  At least we'll be able lynch the bankers, the NSA, and the politicians first.
13. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by ColdWetDog · 2014-01-06 09:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Ah, another day at Slashdot.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
14. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by homey+of+my+owney · 2014-01-06 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  You'll need those twinkies... And lots of 'em. Yellowstone super volcano is a planetary killer - or best scenario: many, many, many years of the equivalent of nuclear winter.
15. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-06 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I never claimed it would be.
16. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by LVSlushdat · 2014-01-06 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you mean Krakatoa? I think that eruption makes Pinatubo look like a firecracker...
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
17. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by ultranova · 2014-01-06 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  NSA is on the east coast, Yellowbone will just kill the west coast, and starve the rest of the world a little.
  
  If Yellowstone erupts, it's the end for the USA. And even if the country by some miracle survives, it won't have the resources to waste on either playing superpower or gathering data "just because". It would be hard pressed to even power the data center.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
18. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by lgw · 2014-01-06 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Airflow is still important. Everyone to the S and E will be covered in a multi-foot layer of ash. I believe it would be hundreds of meters deep near Yellowstone, and still meters deep along the coast. That's a long-term problem.
  California and the far NE are the best bets for immediate survival, and Cali probably has more experience with hydroponics, as growing plants indoors is a somewhat common hobby there compared to Maine.
  We'd certainly survive as a species, but not very many of us - the combination of hydroponics and nuclear power plants that survived the initial event would ensure a technological base, plus I suspect some subsistence farming would still be possible in a few parts of the world, if we lived long enough to find the right low-light crops.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
19. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-06 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  Well, sure, except the US has a proven history of spending money on unnecessary military and intelligence budgets when extraordinary domestic issues call.
20. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Krakatoa is the more apt example. It's eruption (explosion) was heard 3000 miles away and its shockwave reverberated around the earth 4 times. The 20ft tsunami it created killed 40,000 people. The explosion was equivalent to 13,000 of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima. And it's still significantly smaller than Yellowstone.
21. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Almost-Retired · 2014-01-06 10:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Prevailing winds if not disturbed by it, and they probably will be, will send the ash cloud east. Various estimates put the layer of ash on an Iowa cornfield from 6" to 40 feet deep. One estimate is as good as the next in this case because the magnitude of the Yellowstone blow cannot be known much before it blows. The correct term is S.W.A.G., which many here are familiar with.
  And if as big an event as some have written, it will do more than "slightly" impinge on the world food production. While I'm not saying it will happen on such a scale, the potential to starve 99% of this planets population of all genus combined genuinely exists. IOW, an extinction event on a par with the KT Boundary 65 million years ago. Or worse. But the record seems clear that it will not be benign, there are known valid records here on this continent between the last blow 640k? years ago, and the arrival of the first humans perhaps 25k to 50k years ago. The rock layer between the surface today, and the KT boundary is a bit short on major bone finds.
  And short of drilling into it, and removing that heat by using it for geothermal power on a scale that will run the rest of the planet, probably not a thing we can do about it.
  Cheers, Gene
22. Re: Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Mt pinatubo and krakatoa where both a VEI6.
  The only real eruption in recent history was the eruption of mt Tambora in 1815.
  That was a VEI7. There was no summer in 1816 and the summer of 1817 wasn't much better.
  A supervolcano eruption wil probilly be a VEI8
23. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by g0bshiTe · 2014-01-06 10:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You seem to be forgetting one important factor, those armed groups that will roam taking what they want, shooting people pretty much for something as little as a single meal or bottle of water.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
24. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Wookact · 2014-01-06 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Cant even post with a user name to backup that sentiment huh?
25. Re: Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  With the current population on this planet, a string of regional events could easily couse a famine which kills billions. Most countries don't have more than a few months of food in stock.
  We are living on a delicate balance.
26. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Penguinisto · 2014-01-06 11:07 · Score: 2
  
  I understand that you're looking at the raw numbers, and they're damned impressive.
  However, shock waves can be deflected - and multiple mountain-sized deflectors (from my POV, the Rockies and Cascades, featuring Mt. Hood) are more than sufficient to do the job of keeping my house and office from flattening.
  Now that said, Anything North and East of the spot is gonna get it pretty hard for hundreds of miles in radius. But the shock wave isn't really what you have to worry about - odds are perfect it'll blow in stages anyway.
  Nope - the really big dangers are twofold:
  First, we have metric shitloads of volcanic ash (anything North of Salt Lake City is gonna get buried in the stuff rather deeply, it'll likely put a coating of some depth on everything eastwards from Yellowstone to New York City, and breathing microscopic glass shards is not going to be fun).
  Second, as others have stated? Welcome to Volcanic Winter. Unless you have something like 2-3 years' worth of food stashed away (and some means of filtering water the whole time), you're gonna be screwed (and cold.) Global Warming will be not much more than a distant memory and the butt of every joke around (among the survivors, anyway. The dead don't joke much.)
  Some good news, though: Once the skies clear up enough and the temperature comes up to normal again, that's going to be some damned fertile soil to grow stuff in.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
27. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  That part is what gets leveled by a shockwave. Multidigit gigatons equivalent.
  
  No. The initial blasts would directly affect Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho... in a worst case scenario. That's it. It will not destroy the Rockies, it will not turn the Continental Divide into a smoking crater. Anybody who is a few hundred miles away will escape not only the initial blasts but also the gasses and falling debris.
  The primary concern is the ash cloud, which will immediately fuck the Mid-West and East Coast, depending on weather patterns and jetstream.
28. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Penguinisto · 2014-01-06 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be forgetting one important factor, those armed groups that will roam taking what they want, shooting people pretty much for something as little as a single meal or bottle of water.
  Not sure that would be as big of a factor, at least outside of whatever groups form from the inhabitants already living in the region. Anyone else is going to be way too busy trying not to get killed by the meters-deep layer of ash, let alone travel anywhere in it.
  As a resident of the Pacific Northwest, I can say for certain that at least outside the metro/urban areas, everyone is pretty much armed to the teeth, so anyone with any ideas along those lines is going to have a very hard slog ahead of them...
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
29. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by lgw · 2014-01-06 11:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If by "those armed groups" you mean "the new government", then no, I'm not forgetting. The largest, most organized group wins fights. If that group isn't lead by the old government (and it most likely would be), then it would swiftly become the new government, as no one likes being shot back at. That's where most governments come from, after all.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
30. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  Shame really, I was looking forward to rising lava levels inside the NSA buildings and then them being snowed under in miles of ash.
  Spy on that, suckers.
31. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Snotnose · 2014-01-06 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  How many stones in a metric shitload?
32. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2014-01-06 12:11 · Score: 2
  
  So what you're saying is we need global warming to cancel it out?
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
33. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by RandomUsername99 · 2014-01-06 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Being a state as agriculturally focused as Maine, even if notably less than California, and having as short of an outdoor growing season as Maine does, they would almost certainly fare better in indoor growing to feed a large population. There's no need for most of California to produce hydroponic vegetables in large commercial quantities. Maine already does for most of the year.
34. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-06 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Which was my point. I'd be far more worried if I was in the US South or US East about impacts from Yellowstone, than I would be in the Pacific NW, or at least West of the Cascades (about mid point in WA/OR), due to how mountain ranges deflect shockwaves.
  Not to say it won't trigger the Cascade megaquake to rip from CA up to Alaska. But that depends.
  Main problem would be the lack of sun for much of the world, but it would be fertile soil eventually. When Mt St Helens blew we had some good crops, but there were some weeks when the dust literally damaged our car windshields and we all had to wear dust masks, especially the dryer areas in Eastern Washington.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
35. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by EvilSS · 2014-01-06 13:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So... the flyover states that produce our food would be wiped out, but NYC, DC, and LA would be spared. Great.
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
36. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WindBourne · 2014-01-06 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  yellowstone will wipe out what is south and EAST of it. draw a radius of 700-1000 miles from northeast to the south. IOW, all the way to the miss would be gone. And the east coast would be in DEEP trouble, so to speak. Loads of fly ash. And no sun for several years at best. In fact, the best place to be would be the west coast, or southern hemisphere. Because most of the north's bread basket will be gone. So will the trees, etc.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
37. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WindBourne · 2014-01-06 13:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The following is probably a better description of what will happen than what you have said.
  
  First, the pyroclastic flow (superheated gas and ash) would play havoc with the western half of the U.S.:
  
  It would kill all life within roughly a 300 mile radius, in a matter of minutes.
  
  It would most likely melt or incinerate anything with a boiling point equal to or less than that of iron.
  
  After about 300 miles the heat would gradually start dying out, leaving people alive, but suffering first, second, and third degree burns.
  
  About that time, the shockwave should hit. There's really no way to predict what kind of damage will happen, but it will likely leave almost anyone in the western half of the U.S. deafened, or with severely damaged hearing. Ironically, this will be the least of the troubles, because...
  
  Though the gas has cooled enough to only scald people, for the remainder of the roughly 600 mile radius, people will have to also deal with their air being poisoned and acidic. Those not killed outright will soon have a very bad day, however, because...
  
  The next effect will primarily cover twice the 600 mile radius in ash, most likely in an eliptical pattern to follow windflows, up to about 4 meters. A good portion of this ash will also come from the previously incinerated landscape. Those not killed by heat, poison, and acid, will now find breathing and moving extremely difficult as they wade through a 12-foot sea of fine powder.
  
  Global Effects would be felt the same day and continue to worsen for the next 3-14 days, depending on the weather patterns. The would include things like.
  
  Little, if any, government assistance. The largest disaster FEMA has ever had to face is 9/11, which stretched their resources to the limit. The affected area of the supervolcano is an estimated 10 million times greater than that of 9/11. To date, FEMA does not have a contingency plan for a disaster on the scale of a supervolcano. Though they have shown an interest in developing one, it is doubtful they will ever have the resources capable of dealing with such an event. So you might want to be prepared, either with supplies, with guns, and/or with your god.
  
  Another problem that will have to be dealt with is the gas sulphur dioxide which forms sulphuric acid when it gets into the stratosphere. This has two main effects, one is blotting out the sun, the other is, of course, sulfuric acid rain.
  
  Within a day or so, temperatures would plummet 15-20 degrees, on average, across the globe. While this wouldn't exactly cause the end of the world, it is likely to turn many temperate climates into arctic ones. Strangely, the greatest differences would be in the southern hemisphere, though thanks to the normally high temperature, it would probably make them a cool average of 72-degrees year-round, thus remove San Diego's monopoly on such temperatures.
  
  Since most foodcrops depend upon a particular temperature and sunlight range, and most foodcrops are grown in temperate climates, and the breadbasket of the U.S. will be under a 12-foot layer of ash, and the damage to global infrastructure, one can expect that a lot of people will starve--roughly 1 billion, at best estimates.
  
  Travel using engines would be severely limited for a while, though the time and location would depend largely on the ashfall. The enormous amount of particulates in the air would not only impair visibility on an unprecedented scale, but also clog air filters within a very short amount of time.
  
  Anyone with breathing problems or allergies can count on a miserable life. Those with perfectly healthy lungs can count on developing breathing problems and allergies.
  
  Most of North America would become uninhabitable until the ash had been beaten down by the acid rain, and hardened enough to walk on. Even then, the poisons within the ash, the topsoil covered with volcanic roc
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
38. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WindBourne · 2014-01-06 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  nah. Those neo-cons/tea* are very heavy in Idaho, and those areas. They will be ground zero.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
39. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  Lol, we would rather post AC and mod your trolling ass down.
  
  -Different AC
40. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  Is that not what you did about scientists?
41. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2014-01-06 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Brazil will finally be a superpower.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
42. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  A metric fuckton of them.
43. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Wildbear · 2014-01-06 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  Tapping the geothermal energy is one possibility. I propose that there is more which can and should be done.
  
  The last three major eruptions of the Yellowstone hot spot were at 640,000, 1.3 million, and 2.1 million years ago. Based on the past intervals, another major eruption might not be far off, at least in geologic terms. And when it blows, it will indeed likely be very large. The Yellowstone hot spot has flattened wide areas of mountains across southern Idaho, leaving the broad Snake River Plain in its wake.
  
  My concern is for some of this country's original native residents, namely the grizzly bears. The contiguous 48 states have confined all of their population of grizzlies immediately on top of this ticking time bomb, and in some nearby regions in Montana and Idaho. If this thing explodes (actually more like when; it's a given that it's going to explode sooner or later), the 48's entire population of grizzlies will likely be among the first to die; due to this involuntary confinement. I therefore request that this population of grizzlies be allowed complete freedom to migrate and repopulate their former range throughout the U.S., so that they will have at least a fighting chance for survival in the event of a major eruption. Easy passage for grizzlies to California should especially be favored; as it may be among the lesser impacted regions in the short term. Such a repopulation would also reduce some of the hypocrisy of the California state flag, which features the California grizzly bear; long ago driven to extinction in that state. For the good of both species, humans and grizzly bears should learn to coexist in peace, without the latter being held in confinement in a potentially dangerous location.
44. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Aighearach · 2014-01-06 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  The wind mostly blows from the west, to the east. The west coast has less danger from Yellowstone, even if it is closer.
  That said, the effects would be global. We're almost a full planet-circumference away from Yellowstone, but we might still be screwed.
  I'm more worried about what sort of definition for "external" these idiots have. Unless the trigger is from another planet, it is never external; it is the internal weather of the planet expressing itself at the surface. If there is only one planet involved, then there is only one large system of geological forces to be involved. So of course it doesn't need an external trigger; it just needs a normal Earthly super-volcano trigger.
45. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Aighearach · 2014-01-06 15:58 · Score: 2
  
  A super-volcano isn't just a giant volcano. Different types of volcanos are different. Super-volcanos are like a giant lake of magma coming to the surface. There may or may not be localized explosions at the start of the event, before it opens wide; that depends on the amount of gas in the magma. That can range from lots of big explosions, to none at all. Once it starts to open wide into a super-volcano, the pressure is already being released. There would be a huge amount of out-gassing, but since it isn't forcing up through a narrow tube, it doesn't need to create a shock wave at all; it can just gas out like a giant boiling pot of toxic soup, blocking out the Sun.
  I wouldn't write too much into a wine-glass analogy. ;) It probably only makes sense that way if you understand the subject. Nobody watching is likely to say it happened like a champagne bottle, or beach ball underwater.
46. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Aighearach · 2014-01-06 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but Krakatoa is considered to be the loudest volcano in the life of the planet so far. It is an edge data-point, not a starting point to scale up from. It is already believed to have been louder than any super-valcano... ever! (on Earth) So, no.
47. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Almost-Retired · 2014-01-06 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  From the Grizzly's point of view, that is not possible. I think he equates most human intrusion into his world, which is wherever the next good thing to eat is, as competition for food, or as food.
  Getting within perhaps 200 yards doesn't bode well for one or the other, depending on whether or not the human is suitably armed.
  But I can certainly appreciate the thought, and you are right that they might be the first near extinction because of the false containment, but the devil is as always, in the details.
  Cheers, Gene
48. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Miamicanes · 2014-01-06 16:23 · Score: 2
  
  "Planet Killer" is a bit extreme. Unlike, say, an asteroid strike, Yellowstone wouldn't do much to the other side of the earth (or even the east coast) besides block sunlight and bury soil in a foot of de-facto concrete sludge. In other words, nuclear power plants will still work, and so will anything else not directly destroyed by the explosion. We have something the dinosaurs (and early humans) didn't -- food that's edible for years, and the means to (expensively) grow it without sunlight. Life would suck, to be sure (especially in poorer countries), and war would probably erupt across the globe, but it's unlikely that it would literally kill all human life -- let alone all life -- on Earth.
  The biggest immediate consequence would probably be the de-facto end of air travel (jet engines have insurmountable problems flying through ash) -- at least, for a few years. If cruise ships had to fill the gap, Miami would probably become the main port of entry for passenger travel into and out of the US... mainly, because it's one of the only cities that actually HAS the port facilities to handle large volumes of passengers RIGHT NOW. I'm guessing that Barcelona, Montpellier, and probably Rome, would become the main passenger terminals at the "Europe" end (by virtue of having cruise terminals of their own, as well as HSR connectivity to the rest of Europe). I'm sure there would be direct service between New York and Southampton (UK) too, but I don't see New York being capable of assuming a role as the main port of entry for passenger ships if it's under martial law and one major food riot away from civil breakdown.
49. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Aighearach · 2014-01-06 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  How many stones in a metric shitload?
  Currently, one. After the eruption... you'll have to count when it happens.
  The more interesting question, how many metric shitloads are we talking about?
  Since 1 metric shitload = 1 Mt. Mazama, we're looking at about 20 metric shitloads (based on the eruption that created the Yellowstone Caldera), give or take ~300 giant burning mudpies (1 giant burning mudpie = 1 St Helens)
50. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Aighearach · 2014-01-06 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/LavaCreekTuff.jpg Show the likely extend of a Yellowstone eruption.
  Maximum thickness right at the eruption site is only 200m thick.
  Also, a lot of the doom and gloom is overblown. Would it be a major life-changing event? Yes. But you can't use the biggest eruptions recently and then just scale up and "OMG." Much smaller volcanos that spew the right (eg, wrong) mix of stuff high enough into the atmosphere cause huge effects, but that doesn't mean that an eruption 20x bigger will cause 20x as much stuff to stay in the atmosphere for years. It just doesn't work that way. The effects could be as you describe, or just a really bad year (outside of the ash zone, anyways)
  Also, the worst of the volcanic winter would only last a decade or so. Sure, some super-volcanos in the past have cooled things for a thousand years... but there is a big difference between a measurable difference, and the immediate worst period. You certainly don't need to develop low-light crops (which is actually kinda silly anyways, if you think about energy conservation) in order to scrape by for 10 years. I could go into the mountains and drop a portable hydro generator into a stream and run a greenhouse on it, sun or no. Obviously people would die. But even eating eat other, probably 10% or more would survive 10 years. And we're probably more resourceful than that. Oil or gas rich nations (like most of the Americas) could probably even just burn that to power greenhouses and make it 20 years with no population loss... politics permitting.
51. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Aighearach · 2014-01-06 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/LavaCreekTuff.jpg
  The moderates in Boise will be screwed, but the real nutters are concentrated up north and have a decent chance of not getting significant direct effects. Weather permitting.
  San Diego, CA could get hit worse than Coeur d'Alene, ID.
52. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Captain+Hook · 2014-01-06 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  How many stones in a metric shitload?
  0.15 stone shitloads... which is still alot because of how big a shitload is.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
53. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by scarboni888 · 2014-01-07 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  And someone can't handle the truth.
54. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WindBourne · 2014-01-07 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  if yellowstone goes, ALL OF Idaho and wyoming will be wiped off the maps.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
55. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  laugh. laugh while you can for the end of the world is neigh.
  you keep on laughing laughing for soon you will laugh no more and
  i will have the last and ultimate laugh for soon for soon for soon
  you will be grovelling in the dirt looking for a blade of grass to
  eat.
  thats right dw dw
  dw the volcano pressure is going up and up up and up and soon and
  very soon it will go go BOOM! in a gigantic BOOM!!!!!!
  and the entire planet will be covered in soot and dust ASH and no
  more sunshine and no more crops and no more cows cause they will
  dead dead as there will no more grass for them to eat.
  no more meat for you dw.
  no more tea in the sunny afternoon while you watch the cricket
  dw.NO MORE WHITE SHIRTS FOR YOU.
  no more full bellies for you.
  you will need to stock up with baked beans for 3 years in advance
  and anarchy will reign.
  the have-nots will tear you apart for a grain for a grain of
  rice.
  it will be choas.choas.
  you will crawl on all fours with the flag of the neds fluttering
  in the breeze overhead dw.
  BUT the above vision can be averted dw.
  listen to me to me take action as i have specified above and we
  could save the planet from ruin.
  think of posterity dw dw
  posterity
  if we save the planet you could get a footnote in history.
  history that right dw.
  everyone except craves a place in history.even you. i urge you
56. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-07 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  So... the flyover states that produce our food would be wiped out, but NYC, DC, and LA would be spared. Great.
  News flash - since you'd all be gone, we on the West Coast would be perfectly fine, having adequate water and soil and bumper crops - and since we make grains, and have these new things called indoor hothouses, we wouldn't miss the flyover states.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
57. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by stoatwblr · 2014-01-07 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Prevailing westerly winds mean that the west coast will be least affected by a Yellowstone eruption (in the immediate aftermath anyway).
  The predicted size (and liklihood) of a Yellowstone super eruption is and has been a matter of intense debate for years (the general concensus is that it's been cooling for the last 2 milion years, further eruptions will be well semaphored and smaller than past ones) - and there are 2 other supervolcanoes which are far more likely to cause trouble to civilisation in the near future.
  On the more immediate scale, north americans should be more worried about the New Madrid fault zone under the Mississipi river, which is more-or-less due for another sequence of richter 7-8 quakes. (Again, this has a history of being fairly regular and is close to "due date". The last quakes had church bells ringing as far away as Boston)
58. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-07 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yellowstone super volcano is a planetary killer - or best scenario: many, many, many years of the equivalent of nuclear winter.
  Think of it as a refreshing bath and disinfecting by the Earth.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
59. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-07 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  If Yellowstone erupts, it's the end for the USA. And even if the country by some miracle survives, it won't have the resources to waste on either playing superpower or gathering data "just because". It would be hard pressed to even power the data center.
  I think you mean the beginning of Cascadia or Ecotopia. Most US GDP in in the West, and we're mostly green, so we should be, for the most part, fine.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
60. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by bbsalem · 2014-01-07 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  There is still some debate among geologists about which was worse in the K/T extinction event, the asteroid impact or the Deccan Traps flood basalt eruptions. In the case of the Paleozoic/Mesozoic extinction event, which was more severe, it was the Siberian Traps flood basalt eruptions that probably caused that extinction event. A super-caldera fed by a mantle hot spot, Yellowstone, can affect the entire landmass to its east. We know that because the last time the magma chamber was unroofed, some 650,000 years ago, a layer of ash can be correlated all the way to the east coast. Volcanic events of much smaller size are tied in the historical record with global cooling events, time over time. The last large such event was in 1815 in Iceland and the following year was the Year with no Summer, 1816.
  Mankind went through a population bottleneck 70,000 years ago due to a supervolcano in Indonesia. Human population collapsed to a few thousand as a result of the global cooling and collapse of the food supply. We aren't talking about the primary blast and pyrroclastic effects here, but the secondary high atmospheric contamination.
  A caldera collapse at Yellowstone would directly affect a large area, as is visible in the piles of ash around that 50 mile wide caldera today, and the airborne ash would affect all of the U.S. and the populated areas of Canada east of it. That ash fall has been found in the record from the last event of 650,000 years ago. A big area around Yellowstone in Montana, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and probably Colorado would be destroyed and not unlike what happened at Mt. St. Helens, but several times the area, directly buried in hot ash falls, and a thick layer of ash fall up to several meters thick. Further away the ash fall is less, but even a couple of inches of ash can be very disruptive. The number of buildings that collapse just because they are not designed to carry ash up to several hundreds of miles away, alone would be a national emergency. I don't think that most of you have the slightest idea of how bad this event could be.
61. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Optali · 2014-01-08 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  In the case a supervolcanoe blows up half of the USA I seriously doubt that you would have much use for a huge passenger port over there.
  
  --
  -- 29A the number of the Beast
62. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by Aighearach · 2014-01-08 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm... I just showed you a map from last time it happened and... you know, they're actually still on the map. Duh.
63. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by hairyfish · 2014-01-10 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  I've got a better conclusion: "We're all fucked" :)
64. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by RockDoctor · 2014-01-13 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yellowstone super volcano is a planetary killer - or best scenario: many, many, many years of the equivalent of nuclear winter.
  Wearing my geologist's hard hat (tricky, since it's in my locker on the drilling rig, 7000km away), Yellowstone is likely to be pretty bad when it goes of (not "when", not "if"), but it's barely a nuclear winter (almost certainly not for the southern half of the planet), and not a planetary killer for anything not restricted to the North American continent.
  A mild degree of concern is appropriate ; hysteria isn't.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
65. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by RockDoctor · 2014-01-13 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  Errr, have you paid any attention to what formed Mauritius?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
66. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by RockDoctor · 2014-01-13 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  We know that because the last time the magma chamber was unroofed, some 650,000 years ago, a layer of ash can be correlated all the way to the east coast.
  Sorry, but the wind was from the N during that event. Significant ashfall didn't extend east of the Missssssssss (the N-S one of USA's two big rivers ; I've forgotten which is which). There may well be millimetres of ash in lake deposits etc further E from there, but that's not the same as "significant".
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
67. Re:Extinction is good in this case because... by RockDoctor · 2014-01-13 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but Krakatoa is considered to be the loudest volcano in the life of the planet so far.
  
  Only true for the almost insignificant portion of the history of the planet covered by human habitation AND record keeping.
  For "big", and "human history" (but not "written records"), try Toba : around 100x Krakatoa, at about 73000 ago.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Have no fear! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:28 · Score: 1

The risk of typos in the story headline are the same as always.
It's like Rob programmed a bit of himself into slashcode before he left.
1. Re:Have no fear! by TheloniousToady · 2014-01-06 08:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The risk of typos in the story headline are the same as always.
  It's like Rob programmed a bit of himself into slashcode before he left.
  It's the though that counts.
2. Re:Have no fear! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  I see what you did there.... _
Priorities by maverickgunn · 2014-01-06 08:28 · Score: 1, Troll

No time to worry about that now, we have brown skinned people to bomb and a proletariat to oppress! Wait, wait...on the other hand, can we kill and threaten them with volcanoes?
1. Re:Priorities by mcgrew · 2014-01-06 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Nice troll, son, but how about staying ontopic? I'd like to know what supervolcano is likeliest to erupt (I'm guessing Yellowstone).
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
2. Re:Priorities by maverickgunn · 2014-01-06 08:40 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  In this case, "likeliest" is a subjective term, since there are so many factors at play and it's difficult if not impossible at this point to try to predict what roaming variable will arise that will push the volcano over the tipping point. The best we can do is compare previous events with current factors, but even then our predictions will fall further on the guessing side of the line.
  So, on a serious basis, I think a higher priority at this point should be placed on developing ways to protect ourselves from an imminent disaster like that relative to the size of that potential disaster. Worst case scenario, we need to pursue solutions which involve leaving the planet entirely if it is rendered uninhabitable for a period long enough to exterminate us.
3. Re:Priorities by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-06 08:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Your failure to predict it will still get you arrested in Italy.
4. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  In soviet Italy..... oh forget it.....
5. Re:Priorities by foma84 · 2014-01-06 09:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  To be fair, they were convicted because they actually they DID predict there would be NO earthquake, and encouraged people to return to their homes. For political/economical interests.
  The journalists got it wrong, no one ever checked the sources.
6. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No. To be *accurate*, the scientists said there was insufficient evidence to suggest than an earthquake was imminent. The politicians said there would be no earthquake. Then, when there *was* an earthquake, the scientists were convicted because of what the politicians said, and the politicians got off scot-free because they "just said what the scientists told them".
7. Re:Priorities by VortexCortex · 2014-01-06 13:07 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Worst case scenario, we need to pursue solutions which involve leaving the planet entirely if it is rendered uninhabitable for a period long enough to exterminate us.
  What if I told you: That's not how survival works. One does not simply walk into outer space due to impending doom; You strike out in multiple directions long before nature's empire strikes back. Afterwards you morn the loss of Ceres Station 9, Mars One, or Earth, etc. and when the great disturbance in the forces of nature have passed it's safe for the return of the kings, or knights, peasants, etc. Developers begin assuming direct control and estimate reoccurrence to determine if they rebuild it, so they will come or instead boldly go where no one has gone before.
  In other words: You can lead a horse to water but they have to swim for themselves. Spreading humanity across the universe to explore under pain of death from hypothetical disaster won't work. Just look at the fools rebuilding New Orleans instead of abandoning ship and deeming it a wildlife habitat. It's the same coin, but different sides as the folks opposing manned space exploration funding. Why you're so resistant to just go -- save yourself -- from extinction realizing you can't take it all with you is beyond me. That's why, despite the poor bastards being doomed, we have to cheer Mars One folks as pioneers and champions of the world -- even if they leverage reality TV gimmicks to pull it off, it can't be helped.
  IMO, although a moon base is too close for comfort to Earth to escape a gamma death ray or solar flare (esp. during a the magnetic pole flip -- which we're 500,000 years over-due for, BTW), all your base needs is to begin developing the tech for survival outside the magnetosphere -- The surface is hard, but you can dig it and live like mole people or just have the habitat be buried alive in regolith. It's more within reach than Mars.
  That humans have the right stuff for space programs and yet wasted four decades without leaving the nest is a much more advanced and persistent threat to the survival than any other singular threat of extinction, including super-volcanoes. If the magnetosphere flips you off during a perfect storm of solar flares, or another disaster extincts you: You have no one to blame but yourselves. You had your chance to survive, but did not make your time count. No matter how many prime directives embedded in your culture, you just wouldn't get your ass to Mars.
8. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 21:58 · Score: 0
  
  There is already such a plan in place to save the human kind in case of global catastrophe, unfortunatly most of us are not going to take part of it. Just watch Eyes Wide Shut and you will understand.
9. Re:Priorities by painandgreed · 2014-01-07 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  No. To be *accurate*, the scientists said there was insufficient evidence to suggest than an earthquake was imminent. The politicians said there would be no earthquake. Then, when there *was* an earthquake, the scientists were convicted because of what the politicians said, and the politicians got off scot-free because they "just said what the scientists told them".
  No, that's how they started out their presentation, but people kept asking them if there would be an earthquake and instead of sticking to their guns and saying "We don't know" which was the correct answer, they ended the conference by telling people not to worry about it and to "go home and have a glass of wine" with smiles and chuckles all around. Add in that this wasn't the proper procedure for having such a press release, they weren't the people who should have been making it, and they were basically only there to discredit a former employee/kook who was saying there would be an earthquake and they start looking less innocent. If they had followed procedure, they would have ignored the kook, said nothing as everything they were intending to say had been said already, and later, while looking stupid to the public in regards to a kook who was correct, would not have been accountable for anything.
Ok by Sla$hPot · 2014-01-06 08:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Any spare ( one way ) tickets for Mars left?
1. Re:Ok by TWiTfan · 2014-01-06 09:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Okay, on the chance that you're not joking:
  You think that Mars is going to be a better environment than a post-volcanic eruption earth? Post-eruption earth would still have oxygen, survivable air-pressure, water, and soil (though you may have to dig for it). We may have to retreat underground for a few years--but still way more survivable than the barren, cold iron desert of Mars ever will be (if there were a way to even get there).
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
2. Re:Ok by swb · 2014-01-06 10:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  All these threats make me wonder if instead of exploring Mars if maybe we wouldn't be better figuring out how to build long-term survival habitats underground or on the sea floor (or both).
3. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  You don't think we could do that "as well as" exploring Mars?
4. Re:Ok by ediron2 · 2014-01-06 18:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  False dichotomy. Do both. Plus anything else prudent in the long-term.
5. Re:Ok by mysidia · 2014-01-06 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  maybe we wouldn't be better figuring out how to build long-term survival habitats underground or on the sea floor
  Well.... many cities have underground structures. There is the whole london underground -- random assortment of subsurface tunnels, and then there are "tunnel dwellers" -- the homeless that live down there, so apparently, the tunnels are a "survivable habitat" in some sense.
  The catch, is that in the event of a volcanic disaster --- the air supply would probably be just as tainted underground as above ground.
6. Re:Ok by Svartormr · 2014-01-06 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  We may have to retreat underground for a few years....
  I would think that, possibly, one hundred years. In mineshafts.
  But do we have enough underground mines? Or--gasp!--are we facing a mineshaft gap?!? >:)
7. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  If we can make useful habitats on the continental shelf then we can probably start a Mars colony.
8. Re:Ok by Anubis+IV · 2014-01-07 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Mars has something going for it though: it lacks 7 billion other people.
  While Earth certainly has far more resources, in a scenario like this, I wouldn't care about that. What I'd care about is how many resources I have, and if I'm having to compete with the other desperate survivors of an extinction-level event for the scarce resources still left, I wouldn't give myself good odds of securing them. I'd much rather take my chances with a well-provisioned trip to Mars. Sure, I'll probably die all the same, but at least I'll get to see space, and the struggles to survive that I'll be facing would all be ones I'd have trained for in advance.
9. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  already did that, It was called the cold war
Puzzling by wcrowe · 2014-01-06 08:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

You mean that up til now it has been widely believed that a super volcano required an external "trigger" before it erupted? I'm no vulcanologist, but I've been intrigued with super volcanoes for over ten years now, and in everything I've read or seen I don't recall anyone saying that some sort of external trigger was needed to "light the fuse", so to speak.

--
Proverbs 21:19
1. Re:Puzzling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  No need to panic, you may return to your basements.
  
  Dr Perrillat said there are no known supervolcanoes that are in danger of erupting in the foreseeable future, and it would take at least a decade or so for the magma pressure within a caldera to build up to a point where an eruption is likely.
2. Re:Puzzling by hawguy · 2014-01-06 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  No need to panic, you may return to your basements.
  
  Dr Perrillat said there are no known supervolcanoes that are in danger of erupting in the foreseeable future, and it would take at least a decade or so for the magma pressure within a caldera to build up to a point where an eruption is likely.
  Unless, of course, our understanding of these volcanoes is still incomplete and it's really triggered by a high pressure magma surge from further below the surface where we have even less understanding of what's going on.
  So I don't think it's ok to stop panicing yet.
3. Re:Puzzling by PNutts · 2014-01-06 08:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm no vulcanologist, but I've been intrigued with super volcanoes for over ten years now, and in everything I've read or seen I don't recall anyone saying that some sort of external trigger was needed to "light the fuse", so to speak.
  Any good vulcanologist knows all you need is a cold fusion device to stop a volcano.
4. Re:Puzzling by war4peace · 2014-01-06 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  How exactly does panicking help?
  Just relax and enjoy life, there's not much you can do about Yellowstone anyway.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
5. Re:Puzzling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  In this universe effect follows cause.
6. Re:Puzzling by hawguy · 2014-01-06 09:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  How exactly does panicking help?
  Just relax and enjoy life, there's not much you can do about Yellowstone anyway.
  It gives me something to look forward to every day as I cautiously leave the bomb shelter to see if the earth has been destroyed over night.
7. Re:Puzzling by plover · 2014-01-06 09:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm no vulcanologist, but I've been intrigued with super volcanoes for over ten years now, and in everything I've read or seen I don't recall anyone saying that some sort of external trigger was needed to "light the fuse", so to speak.
  Any good vulcanologist knows all you need is a cold fusion device to stop a volcano.
  Any good vulcanologist would use logic to solve the problem, instead of approaching it with emotions.
  
  --
  John
8. Re:Puzzling by Tablizer · 2014-01-06 09:57 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I don't recall anyone saying that some sort of external trigger was needed to "light the fuse", so to speak
  Aaachooooo! ...... oh shit ...
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
9. Re:Puzzling by symbolset · 2014-01-06 10:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Unfortunately the Yellowstone caldera has been swelling for a decade.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
10. Re:Puzzling by dantotheman · 2014-01-06 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  You mean that up til now it has been widely believed that a super volcano required an external "trigger" before it erupted? I'm no vulcanologist, but I've been intrigued with super volcanoes for over ten years now, and in everything I've read or seen I don't recall anyone saying that some sort of external trigger was needed to "light the fuse", so to speak.
  I'm no vulcanologist either, but I can still "live long and prosper."
11. Re:Puzzling by CapOblivious2010 · 2014-01-06 10:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I've been meaning to start drinking heavily, and this is the perfect time: with any luck at all, I'll already be dead when the volcano blows! Take that, fate - I refuse to play by your rules!
12. Re:Puzzling by CapOblivious2010 · 2014-01-06 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm no vulcanologist either, but I can still "live long and prosper."
  Not if the volcano blows any time soon!
13. Re:Puzzling by wcrowe · 2014-01-06 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know, I don't know
  I don't know where I'm-a gonna go when de volcano blow
  But I don' wanna land in New York City
  I don' wanna land in-a Mexico
  Don' wanna land on no Three Mile Island
  Don' wanna see my skin aglow.
  Don' wanna land in Comanche Skypark
  Or in Nashville Tennessee
  Don' wanna land in no San Juan Airport
  Or in de Yukon-a-Territory
  Don' wanna land no San Diego
  Don' wanna land in no Buzzard Bay
  Don' wanna land on no Ayatollah
  I got nothin' more to say.
  Volcano - Jimmy Buffet song
  
  --
  Proverbs 21:19
14. Re:Puzzling by gargleblast · 2014-01-06 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ooh minor nitpick, let me make a few adjustments:
  
  Unless, of course, Argument from ignorance going on.
  So Non sequitur.
  There, fixed that for you.
15. Re:Puzzling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Any good vulcanologist would simply say, "Live long and prosper".
16. Re:Puzzling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  Any good Vulcan that is.
17. Re:Puzzling by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2014-01-06 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  And lets imagine some not-too-big tidal force from recently hypothesized black matter bagel around earth. No?
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
18. Re:Puzzling by mysidia · 2014-01-06 19:47 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately the Yellowstone caldera has been swelling
  Oil! Time to send some fracking teams in....
19. Re:Puzzling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Well, duh.. cause it says "cold" in the title right there.. and, like, "fusion" is also super-cool right now
20. Re:Puzzling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  The Horizon programmes 3 years ago confirmed that National
  Yellowstone Park in the USA is actually a recurring exploding super
  volcano which explodes every 600000 years and that the current
  explosian is overdue by 40000 years.
  I urge everyone to spread the word as this information is being
  kept quiet to avoid mass panic and economic gloom.
  Recent seismic activity as well as macroscopic large scale
  changes in the environment suggest that an explosion is imminent any
  time soon.
  Some of these changes include the ground heaving up as indicated
  by satellite measurements.
  higher pressure geysers,plants and wildlife dying off due to very
  high ground temperatures.
  some parts have been closed of to the public.
  An explosion would generate upto 10000 cubic kilometres of
  outflow much of it going into the atmosphere for about 6 months at
  least and causing a nuclear winter and starvation worldwide due to
  crop failures everywhere.A normal volcano generates upto about 1
  cubic kilometre of outflow.
  I suggest that steps be taken to stop the explosion from occuring
  and we must put pressure on the President and the Prime Minister to
  take measures to stop the explosion occuring.
  Remember EVERYONE will be effected.
  look you can snigger all you want but remember you too will be a
  victim.there wil be no escape for anyone.so laugh while you can.
  geological surveys in the last few years have shown an increasing
  rate of ground tilt due to the massive pressure caused by the very
  hot lava and superheated gases.if nothing is done the eruption is
  inevitable with the resulting grave consequences exceeding that of a
21. Re:Puzzling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  I thought you needed one of those alien produced boxes with a triangular antenna like the Six Million Dollar Man used.
22. Re:Puzzling by esecallum · 2014-01-08 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm no vulcanologist, but I've been intrigued with super volcanoes for over ten years now, and in everything I've read or seen I don't recall anyone saying that some sort of external trigger was needed to "light the fuse", so to speak.
  Any good vulcanologist knows all you need is a cold fusion device to stop a volcano.
  Any good vulcanologist would use logic to solve the problem, instead of approaching it with emotions.
  look you can snigger all you want but remember you too will be a victim.there wil be no escape for anyone.so laugh while you can.
  geological surveys in the last few years have shown an increasing rate of ground tilt due to the massive pressure caused by the very hot lava and superheated gases.if nothing is done the eruption is inevitable with the resulting grave consequences exceeding that of a nuclear conflict.
  the technology to stop volcanos is very simple and before i tell you i assert exclusive owenership of this particular idea to stop volcanos exploding.
  The primary measures to be taken to delay or stop the explosion would be to use an analogy and literally "lance the boil" to relieve the pressure.
  By using standard oil drilling techniques to insert pipelines to relieve the pressure or releasing the superheated lava the eruption can be delayed or stopped depending on much of either is released and the rate at which it is released.
  there are other methods as well but the above is the simplest and most direct.
  to allow significant delay or stopping of the eruption i calculate that between 30 to 100 drill holes would be required at various equidistant points around the volcano.
  the resulting high pressure molton lave would the be transported using using pipelines and would be used to fll underground cavities or fill in the troughs between hill, hummocks, or mountains.
  also very importantly the hot lava flow can be used as a vast source of energy for steam turbine power stations.
  steam turbine power stations are relatively easy to construct and again upto 30 to 100 would be set up along each pipeline thus solving america energy needs for millenia.
  the molton lava can also be used as a construction material by ,mass producing houses using molds into which the molton lava would be poured.these houses would be very strong and earthquake proof as no bricks and morter would be used and would be essentially be a single construction and could be exported to japan.
  you see i have solved 3 of the worlds problems in a few paragraphs.no need for any fancy expensive advanced technology.
  Again i assert exclusive owenership of these ideas.
  now lets start organising a campaign to notify Bush/Blair as these people are totally unaware and obsessed with A-Rabs who are totally insignificant compared to the danger posed by this super volcano. what moron keeps deleting my posts?
But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:29 · Score: 1

It's still only happening about every 100,000 years. Will it eventually happen? Yes. Can we do anything about it? Nope. This planet is still the dog and we are still the fleas.
1. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by hawguy · 2014-01-06 08:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's still only happening about every 100,000 years. Will it eventually happen? Yes. Can we do anything about it? Nope. This planet is still the dog and we are still the fleas.
  Depends what you mean by "do anything about it" - if by "do anything" you mean "preserve the human race", then we could easily have a permanent and self-sufficient base on the moon within a few decades if we dedicated half of our military budget to it, and a base on Mars a few decades beyond that. The entire Apollo project "only" cost around $170 billion in 2005 dollars -- the USA Military Budget is around $700B annually.
2. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by danlip · 2014-01-06 09:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It would cost a lot more than the Apollo project to get a permanent self-sufficient base on the moon or mars, probably hundreds of times more, maybe thousands, especially is it has to be truly self-sufficient (no external supplies ever, no margin for error).
  And a super-volcano is not going to wipe out the human race. Maybe 99% (mostly via starvation) but that still leaves millions. Same for a comet/asteroid strike, nuclear war, etc. (a super-virus might do it). As far as knowledge preservation, a lot could be done regarding that on Earth.
3. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by ColdWetDog · 2014-01-06 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Or we could just have random pockets of civilization here on earth looking to create a locally sustainable lifestyle with careful attention to long range power supply issues (without power, modern civilization is dead, with sufficient power, we can do most anything).
  Pretty much exactly what you have to do to get to Mars without the getting to Mars part.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
4. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  we could easily have a permanent and self-sufficient base on the moon within a few decades if we dedicated half of our military budget to it, and a base on Mars a few decades beyond that.
  [citation needed]
5. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by hawguy · 2014-01-06 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  It would cost a lot more than the Apollo project to get a permanent self-sufficient base on the moon or mars, probably hundreds of times more, maybe thousands, especially is it has to be truly self-sufficient (no external supplies ever, no margin for error).
  And a super-volcano is not going to wipe out the human race. Maybe 99% (mostly via starvation) but that still leaves millions. Same for a comet/asteroid strike, nuclear war, etc. (a super-virus might do it). As far as knowledge preservation, a lot could be done regarding that on Earth.
  Have any sources for your estimate? Note that I already proposed spending 50 times the Apollo costs to set up a permanent self-sufficient Lunar base, while others have pegged the cost of a manned (though not self-sufficient) Lunar base at $35B (or 1/4 the cost of Apollo). I'm curious how you arrived at a figure that's 200 - 2000 times higher. The Mars costs are more nebulous since if we did build a lunar base and can find sufficient natural resources there or via asteroid mining, that would drop the cost of a Mars base dramatically so it's not out of line to expect that setting up the base on Mars is not dramatically more than the cost of setting up the Lunar base.
  Perhaps 4 - 6 decades to get to the Moon and Mars is too optimistic without a clear and present threat to drive the project faster, but I don't think the cost estimates are out of line.
6. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Baloroth · 2014-01-06 09:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's still only happening about every 100,000 years. Will it eventually happen? Yes. Can we do anything about it? Nope. This planet is still the dog and we are still the fleas.
  Depends what you mean by "do anything about it" - if by "do anything" you mean "preserve the human race", then we could easily have a permanent and self-sufficient base on the moon within a few decades if we dedicated half of our military budget to it, and a base on Mars a few decades beyond that. The entire Apollo project "only" cost around $170 billion in 2005 dollars -- the USA Military Budget is around $700B annually.
  Or we could just do nothing, as humanity survived the last Yellowstone eruption just fine (or we wouldn't be around today). And they managed that without any of our modern technology or scientific knowledge. A base on the moon or Mars is definitely in the long-term survival plans for humanity, but we don't need one to survive a once-in-a-million year event like a supervolcano eruption, it's the once-in-a-hundred million events like asteroid collisions (or eventually the sun expanding) we need to worry about.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
7. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Wycliffe · 2014-01-06 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Or we could just have random pockets of civilization here on earth looking to create a locally sustainable lifestyle with careful attention to long range power supply issues (without power, modern civilization is dead, with sufficient power, we can do most anything).
  Pretty much exactly what you have to do to get to Mars without the getting to Mars part.
  Most if not all current "sustainable lifestyle" proposals are based on the assumption that we can grow plants with the help of the sun.
  In order to survive something of this magnitude you need to change your assumptions to not include the sun so this means sufficient
  artificial lights to grow all your plants and sufficient power to power all your lights. This is actually somewhat feasible, you just need
  a windmill or two and the typical setup used to grow pot indoors but probably not something most people are going to plan for.
8. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  but I don't think the cost estimates are out of line.
  Clearly you are well intentioned but out of touch with the reality of today's government spending issues.
  Let's use the HealthCare.gov website as an example. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Any, and I mean any, space related government project, let alone a permanent base somewhere, is going to cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.
  They'll drop a trillion dollars, and 20 years, just doing the feasibility studies. Of course the world's views, politics and priorities will change by then, and so will our use of technology. So we'll have to scrap most of the work and start again. And everything will be more expensive by an order of magnitude.
  Wash, rinse, repeat a few times and we'll be ready to start building the first line of spaceships (these will be scrapped - just look at the Shuttle replacements). We'll try it again, but technology moves so faster than we can implement it on such a critical scale. Ugh.
  By now we're 50-60 years down the road, everything is so much more expensive that we need to reevaluate our priorities again. All that money that could have been spent on feeding, caring for and saving the lives of real people instead of trying to build an escape plan for a disaster that may or may not happen sometime in the next 500 - 5,000 centuries.
  A 5 year old with $100 can make better purchasing decisions and get more for his money than the US government with a million dollars.
9. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by blackanvil · 2014-01-06 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Nonsense, all we need is a self-sufficient underground colony. " Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap! "
10. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by steelfood · 2014-01-06 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  We don't really need a self-sufficient human base. Just one where we can indefinitely store all the collective knowledge of the human race. Then all we'd need is a way of collecting solar power such that people a hundred thousand years from now (assuming humans manage to survive an extinction-level event) would be able to get to the stored knowledge.
  The storage medium doesn't necessarily have to electronic either, but I can imagine that any maintenance, security, and (temporary) life support system should be run off the sun's energy.
  We should be doing these things on Mars and eventually the outer planets too. Crash a ship containing all our knowledge into Pluto kinda thing.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
11. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by CapOblivious2010 · 2014-01-06 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly you are well intentioned but out of touch with the reality of today's government spending issues.
  Let's use the HealthCare.gov website as an example. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Any, and I mean any, space related government project, let alone a permanent base somewhere, is going to cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.
  Worse yet, it's going to need a web site of its own: http://www.lunarcolony.gov/
12. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by ChromaticDragon · 2014-01-06 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Umm... I'm not entirely certain what your definition of "human" or "humanity" might be.
  The last major eruption at 640k years back would predate what is usually used as the timeframe of the start of Homo Sapiens as a species (500k years ago).
  Of course, you are correct whatever was around in the Homo genus did indeed lack any of our modern tech.
13. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by fido_dogstoyevsky · 2014-01-06 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  It would cost a lot more than the Apollo project to get a permanent self-sufficient base on the moon or mars, probably hundreds of times more, maybe thousands, especially is it has to be truly self-sufficient (no external supplies ever, no margin for error). ...
  To put costs into perspective:
  Cost of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo projects reported as 28.4gigabucks (1.7+1.3+25.4).
  The Vietnam war probably cost the US 600gigabucks and the 2003-2010 Iraq War cost the US 3-6terabucks (this figure is more for interest's sake, because I can't be bothered converting it to 1960s equivalent).
  And the cost of setting up a lunar/martian base could be spread around the world (assuming racial survival trumps political games).
  
  --
  It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
14. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  This is the point people keep missing. Similar eruptions have occurred multiple times in the past several million years, including within the timeframe modern humans have been present. Even today, an eruption by itself would not even wipe out most of the US population, although the resulting famine and disorder probably wouldn't help. That isn't to say we don't need to worry about it, only that it isn't a planet, or likely even a species, killer event. Just a really, really bad day for everybody within a few hundred miles, and a really bad decade or century for everybody else.
15. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  It's still only happening about every 100,000 years. Will it eventually happen? Yes. Can we do anything about it? Nope. This planet is still the dog and we are still the fleas.
  Depends what you mean by "do anything about it" - if by "do anything" you mean "preserve the human race", then we could easily have a permanent and self-sufficient base on the moon within a few decades if we dedicated half of our military budget to it, and a base on Mars a few decades beyond that. The entire Apollo project "only" cost around $170 billion in 2005 dollars -- the USA Military Budget is around $700B annually.
  Or we could just do nothing, as humanity survived the last Yellowstone eruption just fine (or we wouldn't be around today). And they managed that without any of our modern technology or scientific knowledge. A base on the moon or Mars is definitely in the long-term survival plans for humanity, but we don't need one to survive a once-in-a-million year event like a supervolcano eruption, it's the once-in-a-hundred million events like asteroid collisions (or eventually the sun expanding) we need to worry about.
  And all the easily available metals and petro-fuels are basically gone, so once the 1% of humanity survives as cavemen we will never be able to handle those future events.
16. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by david_thornley · 2014-01-06 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  while others have pegged the cost of a manned (though not self-sufficient) Lunar base at $35B [space.com] (or 1/4 the cost of Apollo).
  
  To be relevant to species survival, we need a self-sustaining colony, not a manned base.
  This means that the colony has to have the people and machinery to rebuild every single thing on the Moon, and the people and machinery to get the resources to do it. It has to have everything necessary for people to be born, grow up, have kids, and grow old. I don't know how big a colony we'd need, but I really doubt a few hundred thousand people would be sufficient.
  The base needs its own air, which has to be contained and maintained and replaced.. It needs its own water. It needs shielding from radiation approaching Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. The people getting the resources need their own air and water and food. We don't really know how to do this, so we can't cost it out. Even after a supervolcano eruption, Earth would be a far easier environment to live in.
  We probably also want more than a relatively few people living a precarious existence on the Moon or Mars. It wouldn't take much, cosmically, to kill them or destroy their economy (which would kill them). The colony would need to be able to grow and support its own spaceflight.
  And we have to start all of this with stuff thrown up out of the Earth's gravity well. It's going to be exceedingly expensive, if it's even possible. We have to predict long-range dangers that may not show up in a century.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
17. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  The world is a lot different place today than over a half a million years ago. Humans hadn't yet wiped most ecosystems into submission at that point. Fortunately today we know what the plants grave in terms of led light frequency and know how to build covers for our fields and water supplies in the "developed world". The problem is how to build enough nuclear capacity and develop closed water loops and perhaps even fusion reactors and other applicable energy systems in time to sustain the energy needs during the long cold period. That and how to save as many as possible from the rest of the world.
  If we compare the situation to the Toba eruption only 75000 years ago which is said to have pushed the human race near extinction (the genetic bottleneck), the human activity soon returned over the couple of meters of ash in the South East Asia. We are all genetically closer together than a pair of chimpanzees randomly selected from the same tribe. It wouldn't be very healthy to go such bottleneck again.
  On the positive note, the US area would become one of the most productive agricultural areas due to the ash a while after the Yellowstone eruption.
18. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by tompaulco · 2014-01-06 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  So what happens when we build a moon colony to avoid the supervolcano catastrophe and then the people back on Earth are still alive and well after the moon colony gets smashed by a meteorite.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
19. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by HiThere · 2014-01-06 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  We *probably* could. It's not certain. We have not yet solved the problems of building a closed eco-system. (I.e., one that only needs resources that can be obtained locally. At totally closed one is an obvious impossibility, or thermodynamics is wrong.)
  Please note that the MIR depends on a continual stream of supplies from Earth. So that's not an example. BioSphere 2 was a disaster, because they hadn't predicted that concrete would be absorbing CO2. Etc.
  Now I don't *think* that this is an intractable problem, but it's one that hasn't been seriously tackled, and until it is cracked long-term presence off the earth is not feasible. And until you've actually solved it, you don't know how hard the problem is going to be.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
20. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by mysidia · 2014-01-06 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  And all the easily available metals and petro-fuels are basically gone, so once the 1% of humanity survives as cavemen we will never be able to handle those future events.
  Eh? Metals are already in the products people have today. If 1% of the population is left, they can easily scavenge the remains the 99% left behind for metal scraps.
  Humans didn't have petrofuels for most of their existence. However, natural gas and coal are still available to be found. There would also likely be a lot of unused petro fuel left by the 99% who died off --- although, much of it might have been destroyed, by the volcano setting it on fire.
21. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 21:20 · Score: 0
  
  so... if we spent our entire military budget on NASA, by the end of 10 years, we'd be able to put almost 50 people on the moon? Humanity is saved!
22. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by scarboni888 · 2014-01-07 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  No because once the military budget is reduced the terrorists have won and and trips to the moon will be hijacked and repurposed for driving into tall buildings.
  We need that budget to protect americans and can't afford one cent less.
  In fact even more money would give you even more protections really.
  In this case the sky really is the limit.
23. Re:But Still Only Every 100,000 years by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Humanity was on a different continent 700,000 years ago, at least the survivors we know of
Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

If we know where the magma chamber is, why can't we tap the chamber to create pressure relief wells, allowing the pressure and magma to drain an semi controlled fashion?
1. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by grub · 2014-01-06 08:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Good idea. Some ABS pipe from the lumberyard should do the trick.
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
2. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by DJ+Jones · 2014-01-06 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not. Keep Hydrofracking! We need more money [cough] I mean jobs!
3. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  If we know where the magma chamber is, why can't we tap the chamber to create pressure relief wells, allowing the pressure and magma to drain an semi controlled fashion?
  Semi-controlled draining and pressure relief of a Super Volcano? We can't even contain an oil well without using explosives. We let just about anything that isn't solid leak and run all over the planet. And you think we can control and contain lava? Lava??
4. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It is a good question that has been asked many times. Even if we devoted much of out GDP toward creating such a well would reduce the pressure by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. It'd be like using sand paper to reduce the weight of an asteroid.
5. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by jafac · 2014-01-06 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  better go with the schedule 120 stuff. schedule 40 is too weak, and would rupture under the load.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
6. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by wjcofkc · 2014-01-06 08:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's been proposed. Supercomputer simulations show that attempting to poke in a relief valve would give the existing pressure a channel to explode though with full force. Just because super volcanoes may not require a trigger does not mean that one cannot be triggered.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
7. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by hawguy · 2014-01-06 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  If we know where the magma chamber is, why can't we tap the chamber to create pressure relief wells, allowing the pressure and magma to drain an semi controlled fashion?
  Sure, drill into it and slowly drain the pressure, or accidentally trigger an eruption through a previously unknown mechanism. (like maybe the well relieves pressure on one side, leading to instability on the other side and an eruption.)
  Willing to take that gamble?
8. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Just put some of those concrete highway dividers in its path with some buses behind them to hold them in place. If that fails, just drop a highrise in its path.
  Easy peasy.
9. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-06 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  I say we nuke it! Show that volcano some mutually assured destruction. That will bring it in line.
10. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Hatta · 2014-01-06 09:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Go take a drill to a cannister of liquid CO2 and let me know how that works for you.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
11. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  Probably not. Keep Hydrofracking! We need more money [cough] I mean jobs!
  Actually if its true that fracking leads to tremors and such then it may actually be relieving some stress, and in that sense its helpful.
12. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  Just put some of those concrete highway dividers in its path with some buses behind them to hold them in place. If that fails, just drop a highrise in its path. Easy peasy.
  You forgot the firehoses cooling the leading edge of the lava creating a wall.
13. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-01-06 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I was thinking of using Big Bertha to do it after she finished laying the Alaskan Viaduct in Seattle.
14. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-01-06 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Introduce it to liquid nitrogen, then it will cease to be lava.
15. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  You may not know this, but Yellowstone is largely in a state called Wyoming. It is a state that is remarkably vacant, and pouring a couple billion or trillion cubic kilometers of lava really wouldn't affect anyone. An ecosystem or two might be FUBAR, we may end up making a mountain range or two, but I'd say that's better than shutting down life on North America and endangering life all over the world.
16. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by chill · 2014-01-06 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Haliburton already started. Why do you think Mary Cheney dropped out of the Wyoming Senate race? She knows that by the time the elections happen there won't BE a Wyoming. Dick would rather blow it up that let it go Democrat!
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
17. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by NatasRevol · 2014-01-06 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  Plus, pollution of the water allows more variation in human genes so we can survive better!
  Unless you don't believe in evolution.
  Texans are so conflicted.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
18. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Antipater · 2014-01-06 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Dr. Teller? Is that you?
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
19. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by NatasRevol · 2014-01-06 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize it's all up hill from all of the midwest, right?
  Guess what? Lava flows downhill!
  Stupid shit.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
20. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by ColdWetDog · 2014-01-06 09:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And the military spec duct tape. Don't forget the duct tape.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
21. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by kellymcdonald78 · 2014-01-06 09:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't think you realize the scale of the energy involved. When St. Helen's blew, it released ~24MT of energy and ~1 cubic km of ash. The last eruption of the Yellowstone caldaera (Lava Creek 640,000 years ago) released more than 1000 cubic km of ash. You're looking at having to dissapate 1000's of MT of energy somehow. Plus, one of the typical triggers to one of these eruptions is a smaller eruption or earthquake that drops the pressure of the magma chamber to the point where dissolved gases come out of solution, then it's like opening a bottle of soda that's been shaken.
22. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naJ18PUo55o
  What if we run out?!
23. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  OMG. I can't believe that you're serious. But just in case you are here we go ... how the fuck do you propose we transport these "couple billion or trillion cubic kilometers of lava" to help Yellowstone have a volcano family reunion? Wish it so? Maybe use Trucks? Trains? How about we invent a land-barge that can transport hot lava and won't melt. I wonder if we can train a million monkeys to use those lights the guys on runways use to land planes. They can just guide it up to Yellowstone.
  You, sir, make my monkeys cry.
24. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not seeing the downside ...
25. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  It must be military spec, naturally. Regular duct tape would be destroyed upon contact with molten rock.
26. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by trongey · 2014-01-06 09:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You may not know this, but Yellowstone is largely in a state called Wyoming.
  You may not know this, but the Yellowstone volcano complex has a history of massively explosive eruptions, not just pouring out lava. The Lava Creek ash bed from the explosion 630,000 years ago extends to the Gulf of Mexico and is as much as 4m thick in places like New Mexico and Kansas.
  
  --
  You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
27. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Probably not. Keep Hydrofracking! We need more money [cough] I mean jobs!
  And as a bonus we can drive hypocritical ecofools batshit insane. Well, insaner, anyway.
  I note you're not living off the grid, and you're obviously using a computer. I bet you have a car, too.
28. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by NatasRevol · 2014-01-06 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Try eating something that's not at least partly derived from foodstuffs in the midwest...
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
29. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by PhxBlue · 2014-01-06 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Willing to take that gamble?
  What gamble? Just outsource it to BP and everything should be fine.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
30. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by tibit · 2014-01-06 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Lava doesn't flow very far if you release it slowly. It simply won't stay liquid for very long, it cools down and solidifies. Heck, a controlled lava release is actually problematic because the solidified front has a good chance of overrunning and entombing your facilities in - you guessed it - solid lava rock.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
31. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by tibit · 2014-01-06 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, according to you, lava is not subject to natural cooling and will retain its temperature forever after. Now who is making whose monkeys cry?
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
32. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by tibit · 2014-01-06 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  This is very insightful. It is the very pressure relief that is problematic!
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
33. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by NatasRevol · 2014-01-06 10:17 · Score: 2
  
  How about if it's released from a hole the size of Wyoming? In massive quantities.
  Might that change the dynamics?
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
34. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by HornWumpus · 2014-01-06 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm willing to take the gamble. But on Campi Flegrei, not Yellowstone.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
35. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by akozakie · 2014-01-06 10:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Would not be the first such gamble. Until the first actual nuclear test the scientists were not entirely sure it won't ignite the whole atmosphere (burning nitrogen). All they had was "almost certainly no" - the Monte Carlo simulations are only simulations. The "micro black hole will swallow earth" controversy about the LHC was also interesting, although different - the scientists doing this were quite sure it wasn't possible, but the idea sounded intriguing to the media, leading to a swarm of interesting discussions and a lot of FUD.
  If we get to the "almost certain" level of modeling the supervolcano and have the technology and knowledge to release pressure in a relatively controlled way it's a matter of risk analysis. If the eruption within a decade seems probable, the project will be launched. And yes, we might be wrong. Oops.
  OTOH - how much energy would such a controlled drain release? What amount of ashes and gases? How much water would evaporate? That's actually more interesting than the "trigger" problem. Can we do it so that the effect will be acceptable, or will it be nearly as destructive to us as an actual explosion?
  An intriguing thought - what if the explosion would ruin a significant part of the US (likely), a controlled drain could reduce that kind of damage a lot (likely), but the worldwide effects (chemical, climate, etc.) were very similar and disastrous (IANAVolcanologist, so perhaps). The supervolcano is on US territory. US risk analysis: do it ASAP, it's less destructive and the explosion is very likely. World risk analysis: don't do it EVER, every month without either draining or explosion is a month more for preparation. Imagine the dillema, the political tension... Ready material for a gripping novel or a blockbuster movie!
36. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  Of course it will cool. But not until it's covered millions of square miles (see this post about the last super volcano eruption in North America) and everyone & everything in those areas. After that there is no reason for "pouring a couple billion or trillion cubic kilometers of lava" into Yellowstone. BTW the verb 'pouring' implies a liquid form of lava.
  My crying monkeys have better reading comprehension than you do, even with tears in their eyes.
37. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by KingOfBLASH · 2014-01-06 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  It's not about the amount of energy released it's about the time it takes to release the energy.
  24MT of energy released in an instant is quite bad, but if you could somehow spread that out over millions of years it wouldn't have any effect.
  If we can double, quadruple, or otherwise increase the amount of time the energy is increased it wouldn't be as bad.
  Of course this is a relative term because perhaps releasing the same amount of energy over 1000x the time still would be very very very bad.
  If it was certain that the yellowstone volcano was going to extinguish life as we know it, I think creative ways of popping a hot molten lava zit would be preferable to waiting around to die.
  Maybe for instance the energy could be redirected to land no one cared about. (No not canada, maybe out into the ocean). Maybe it would be possible to create some sort of atmospheric hepa filter.
  It'd still be bad but it's better than doing nothing.
38. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  If you are drilling through rock, wouldn't it make it's own pipe? A little leakage would cool, sealing the sides of the bore hole.
39. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  If it's going to blow either way. One way is predictable and the other is not, I'd vote for the more controlled method, even if the control is just knowing when it will happen.
40. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  The relief of pressure (eruption) occurs where there is the least amount of resistance. If you provide a different location with less pressure, like by drilling, there will be your new eruption point. Now, if the magma chamber wasnt already full, this might be possible, however, just like with the concept of manually introducing water info faults to 'lubricate' them for less severe earthquakes, it would be so expensive, dangerous, and risky, and such a massive undertaking with so many unknown variables and so many people crying about how you're going to destroy the world and what-not, that its really not even worth trying for anything short of a guaranteed-to-end-human-civilization-forever scale event.
41. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  It is also called Jesus tape for a reason. Jesus saves, especially military spec Jesus.
42. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  Judging by the amount of damage to buildings in Pozzuoli from the uplift of Solfatara, it can happen.
43. Re: Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. Knowing it will happen in four months is a lot better than knowing it might happen any time in the next 100,000 years. Just the feeling of being in control of the situation makes it worth it.
44. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by allcoolnameswheretak · 2014-01-06 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  Actually... if a thermomuclear weapon would be detonated above the volcano at the moment of eruption, wouldn't the pressure from the bomb equalize the pressure of the eruption, perhaps even pushing all the debris and ash back down on the ground? So everyone will still be deaf and slightly radioactive, but at least we don't have to contend with all that ash and ice age business.
45. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  A better and simpler analogy is to shake up a warm soda can, and then start drilling into it.
46. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by HiThere · 2014-01-06 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should dig the relief tube with nukes. That way the tube would be large enough that there'd be no need for a volcano explosion. Plowshare!
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
47. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by mysidia · 2014-01-06 20:05 · Score: 2
  
  If we know where the magma chamber is, why can't we tap the chamber to create pressure relief wells, allowing the pressure and magma to drain an semi controlled fashion?
  The regulators will never approve it, after they see the environmental impact statement: In case of errors, relief well may become enlarged -- resulting in full scale eruption, and massive ash cloud posing a minor threat to local ecosystems
48. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by mysidia · 2014-01-06 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  Good idea. Some ABS pipe from the lumberyard should do the trick.
  Make sure to get the high-temperature version. For optimal function -- coat the interior with a silicon or Obsidian gel.
49. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  French cheese?
50. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  Almost Off Topic here, but just want to point out that the LHC scientists weren't just "quite sure", this was a 100% could not ever happen, unlike the nuclear one. They were "quite sure" not micro black hole would form, but even if that would happen, surprising the hell out of everyone, such a thing could never be able to feed and grow and would wink out in a matter of nanoseconds, impacting nothing.
51. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by NatasRevol · 2014-01-07 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Cows probably fed grain from midwest.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
52. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Could easily enough excavate a series of chambers to buffer the pressure with the final drill in the last chamber - once it's set to drill down (in an automated manner) to relieve the pressure start pressurizing each chamber such that the inner one to surface one form a high-low pressure gradiant. This isn't exactly rocket science, it's basic physics and we can make pressure chamber that work a Hell of a lot better than rock.
53. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by LanMan04 · 2014-01-07 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Go take a drill to a cannister of liquid CO2 and let me know how that works for you.
  I imagine it would go better than sitting the canister of liquid CO2 on a stove burner and then just sitting back and waiting...
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
54. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  Would not be the first such gamble. Until the first actual nuclear test the scientists were not entirely sure it won't ignite the whole atmosphere (burning nitrogen). All they had was "almost certainly no" - the Monte Carlo simulations are only simulations. The "micro black hole will swallow earth" controversy about the LHC was also interesting, although different - the scientists doing this were quite sure it wasn't possible, but the idea sounded intriguing to the media, leading to a swarm of interesting discussions and a lot of FUD.
  If we get to the "almost certain" level of modeling the supervolcano and have the technology and knowledge to release pressure in a relatively controlled way it's a matter of risk analysis. If the eruption within a decade seems probable, the project will be launched. And yes, we might be wrong. Oops.
  OTOH - how much energy would such a controlled drain release? What amount of ashes and gases? How much water would evaporate? That's actually more interesting than the "trigger" problem. Can we do it so that the effect will be acceptable, or will it be nearly as destructive to us as an actual explosion?
  An intriguing thought - what if the explosion would ruin a significant part of the US (likely), a controlled drain could reduce that kind of damage a lot (likely), but the worldwide effects (chemical, climate, etc.) were very similar and disastrous (IANAVolcanologist, so perhaps). The supervolcano is on US territory. US risk analysis: do it ASAP, it's less destructive and the explosion is very likely. World risk analysis: don't do it EVER, every month without either draining or explosion is a month more for preparation. Imagine the dillema, the political tension... Ready material for a gripping novel or a blockbuster movie!
  look you can snigger all you want but remember you too will be a
  victim.there wil be no escape for anyone.so laugh while you can.
  geological surveys in the last few years have shown an increasing
  rate of ground tilt due to the massive pressure caused by the very
  hot lava and superheated gases.if nothing is done the eruption is
  inevitable with the resulting grave consequences exceeding that of a
  nuclear conflict.
  the technology to stop volcanos is very simple and before i tell
  you i assert exclusive owenership of this particular idea to stop
  volcanos exploding.
  The primary measures to be taken to delay or stop the explosion
  would be to use an analogy and literally "lance the boil" to relieve
  the pressure.
  By using standard oil drilling techniques to insert pipelines to
  relieve the pressure or releasing the superheated lava the eruption
  can be delayed or stopped depending on much of either is released
55. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Ready material for a gripping novel or a blockbuster movie!
  ...aaaand there comes another Roland Emmerich movie.
56. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by kellymcdonald78 · 2014-01-07 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Lets say we try to dissipate it over 1000 years. Thats still the equivalent of deatonating a 60 kt nuke, every day, for a 1000 years. Of course you wont have a 1000 years since once you lower the pressure in the magma chamber to the point where dissolved gasses come out of solution, the thing will explode anyways. Secondly how exactly are you going to "channel" or "redirect" this kind of energy?
57. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  Fight fire with ice. Convert the whole human populace into liquid Nitrogen manufacturing. Freeze that molten pimple into normal surrounding rock.
58. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by KingOfBLASH · 2014-01-08 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  60 kt nukes have been set off that don't destroy civilization. Setting off a 60 kt nuke would be bad, but you'd just basically get an area you couldn't fly over go near for 1000 years.
  Sure beats the alternative.
  Do I know how to do it? No. Could someone figure it out? Yes.
59. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-08 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Go take a drill to a cannister of liquid CO2 and let me know how that works for you.
  CO2 doesnt have a liquid form....
60. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by esecallum · 2014-01-08 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between a controlled release of the magma/pressure using my idea and a violent uncontrolled explosion many gigatons in power which will occur if we dont act.
  its essentially the same method as used in high pressure steam boilers to stop them exploding.a safety valve opens to release the pressure once it goes above a certain value.
  my idea is to apply it to volcanos for the same reason.
  its not science fiction.its simple physics.
  i see since you could not negate my idea you had to resort to your usual insults.
  this indicates a problem with you.
  i urge all people who read this in the USA TO ACT NOW AND TO CONTACT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NSA.
  remember this a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the USA and the world.
  the danger is not from a bunch of head banded arabs but from their own back yard.
  its from national yellostone park which will blow up with the power of a thousand nuclear weapons or more. start contacting the government now.
  (dont contact the CIA as they are DF's
61. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by kellymcdonald78 · 2014-01-10 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not 1 60kt nuke, 1 60kt nuke every day for a 1000 years. Plus again, once you drop the pressure of the magma chamber to the point where gasses come out of solution, the whole thing explodes anyways
62. Re:Can eruptions like the be averted? by kellymcdonald78 · 2014-01-10 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, childs play to excavate a series of chambers 30-40 MILES in diameter. Again you have no concept of how much energy is involved in these eruptions. We're talking orders of magnitude more than all of humanity has generated and consumed since the beginning of time. It like building a container that could hold the simultaneous deatonation of the world's entire nuclear arsenal at the peak of the cold war.
WTF is happening to slashdot by arcite · 2014-01-06 08:30 · Score: 1

Forget the super volcano, there's a typo in the title!
1. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot uses MySQL, so "title" is probably a char(n) field where this title was n+1 long, and mysql just deleted the last character without an error message because it's not like your data was all that important anyway.
2. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by ThatsDrDangerToYou · 2014-01-06 08:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Forget the super volcano, there's a typo in the title!
  Quiet! That typo could be enough to trigger it!
3. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  It means the volcano went off and killed the submitter before he finished typing, and the same thing happened to the slashdot "editor."
4. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot uses MySQL, so "title" is probably a char(n) field where this title was n+1 long, and mysql just deleted the last character without an error message because it's not like your data was all that important anyway.
  Stop making excuses for samzenpus. The title is 79 characters long. Does that sound like a number /. would use for a field length?
5. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-01-06 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  You mean /. programmers are old FORTRAN programmers?
6. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Stop making excuses for samzenpus. The title is 79 characters long. Does that sound like a number /. would use for a field length?
  No, but it does sound like a number that MySQL would pull out of its ass when arbitrarily truncating a field.
7. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by bobbied · 2014-01-06 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  It means the volcano went off and killed the submitter before he finished typing, and the same thing happened to the slashdot "editor."
  So.. Who/what hit the submit button then?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
8. Re: WTF is happening to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  No you mean that they deliberately didn't enable strict-mode and thus told MySQL that they didn't wanted that warning.
9. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by Xtifr · 2014-01-06 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Since your ID# makes it clear you've been around for a while, I shouldn't have to spell out the response to this: YMBNH! :)
10. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Stop making excuses for samzenpus. The title is 79 characters long. Does that sound like a number /. would use for a field length?
  No, but it does sound like a number that MySQL would pull out of its ass when arbitrarily truncating a field.
  This story has a headline length of 80 characters:
  
  US Internet Service In 2014: Net Neutrality Challenges and High-Speed Build-Outs
11. Re:WTF is happening to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  a stone or a pressure from v. ash. What is more interesting is how tf the bloody computer was able to transmit anything to /. servers in such conditions.
Sequel to Sharknado by stazeii · 2014-01-06 08:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Sharkcano!
1. Re:Sequel to Sharknado by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-01-06 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  The real sequel to "Sharknado" seems to be "Shark Avalanche"....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
2. Re:Sequel to Sharknado by Antipater · 2014-01-06 09:27 · Score: 2
  
  They're just setting the stage for the next movie: Shark Avalanche vs. Lava Snake
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
3. Re:Sequel to Sharknado by Tablizer · 2014-01-07 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Is that worse than Zimmernado?
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Lottery Tickets by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:36 · Score: 1

In related news it has been reported that if you purchase 50 lottery tickets then you are 50 times more likely to win than the guy who purchased one. Film at 11. Probably not of you winning though.
1. Re:Lottery Tickets by hazah · 2014-01-06 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Kids, this is a great example of completely misunderstanding probabilities. You are most definitely are not going to be "50 times more likely to win". It ain't how it works.
2. Re:Lottery Tickets by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Actually that's exactly how it works, assuming only a single prize for getting all of the numbers right, and each of the 50 tickets has a combination of numbers distinctly different from the other 49.
  If you need proof: assume there are 100 million combinations of numbers. Assume you buy a single ticket with a single combination of numbers. Now assume I buy 100 million tickets to cover all possible combinations of numbers. I am, by definition, assured of winning: my odds of winning are 100% (1.0). Your odds of winning are 1 in 100,000,000. By definition, 100 million different lottery tickets are 100 million times more likely of winning than a single lottery ticket.
  Similar arguments hold when I buy any number of lottery tickets.
3. Re:Lottery Tickets by dbraden · 2014-01-06 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  As the AC below also said, it is how it works (assuming all 50 tickets were for the same drawing).
4. Re:Lottery Tickets by SleazyRidr · 2014-01-06 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  I think I've missed something. I thought that was how it worked, how does it work?
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
5. Re:Lottery Tickets by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  That's right. In fact, you're only 49 times more likely to win. You're 50 time as likely to win. It's not really a statistical misunderstanding, though; that's purely a linguistic thing.
  Bear in mind that, since the chance of winning with a single ticket is very small, the difference between that chance and 50 times that chance is also very small, so buying many extra tickets isn't a.sound decision.
6. Re:Lottery Tickets by gameboyhippo · 2014-01-06 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Please elaborate on how it works. While I don't play lotto due to the astronomical odds, I was under the impression that if I rolled a dice hoping to get a 1 then I would have a 1/6 chance of getting my roll. If I was hoping to get a 1 or 2 or 3 then my odds are now 1/2 of getting a good roll.
7. Re:Lottery Tickets by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  Not if all the tickets are for the same set of numbers....heh
8. Re:Lottery Tickets by nedlohs · 2014-01-06 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  No, that is exactly how it works.
9. Re:Lottery Tickets by hazah · 2014-01-07 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Replying to myself... all yous forgot how to google. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=554420. Still don't believe me, do the actual math. Why in the world would think this relationship is liniar is beyond me.
10. Re:Lottery Tickets by hazah · 2014-01-07 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a liniar relationship. Why don't you roll a few dice and see? For one, the winning combination is picked from one set, with indifferent order. Which means you can't have a repeated number, and they can come in any combination. You can pick exactly 50 different combination on the cards. However, you can choose the same number on different cards, this means that out of the 50 different combinations, you may or may not have overlaps on the digits themselves. That's just one case where it will not line up. Secondly, the individual ticket's chances DO NOT GO UP, individually each ticket has the same chance, but NO TICKET DIMINISHES THE CHANCE OF ANY OTHER TICKET, again, this is because of overlapping possible conbinations. This situation gets even more complicated when you start to concider that you can have 3 tickets, and each one covering only 2 of the winning numbers, but on their own, are not winners (I picked 6 total just for illustrative purposes). This isn't even getting into the math itself. In short, nope, sorry, it ain't how it works, even if you don't believe me.
11. Re:Lottery Tickets by nedlohs · 2014-01-07 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it is. Each ticket has a 1 in N chance of winning, if you buy N tickets you have a 100% of winning (and still lose money but that's not relevant).
  And no if you buy 50 lottery tickets you don't buy two tickets with the exact same numbers on them.
  Sure if you add such a retarded idea to it then yes buying 50 tickets would not give you 50 times the chance of winning over buying 1 ticket. If, however, you aren't retarded then those 50 tickets will in fact give you 50 times the chance of winning (assuming there are at least 50 possible outcomes in the lottery of course). Overlapping numbers other than exact duplicate tickets make no difference - you win if you match everything if it's a pick 5 numbers and I have two tickets 1,2,3,4,5 and 1,2,3,4,6 then I have doubled my chances of winning.over having one ticket, which should be obvious enough I now cover two of the equally likely potential outcomes instead of one.
  And of course the individual tickets chances doesn't go up, I'm not sure why you thought it worth pointing out the completely obvious. And of course no ticket diminishes the chance of any other ticket are you arguing with voices in your head or something?
12. Re:Lottery Tickets by hazah · 2014-01-08 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  And of course no ticket diminishes the chance of any other ticket are you arguing with voices in your head or something?
  Hmm perhaps I am... :)
  I'm about 12 years removed from the class where I first encountered this. I'm a bit rusty on the formulations of permutations and combinations. As I'm typing this, I see my own confusion. For some deranged reason I applied a formulation that describes playing the game anew 50 times, rather than 50 tickets for one game. Kind of laughing at myself now. Cheers.
13. Re:Lottery Tickets by hazah · 2014-01-08 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  ... Aaaaaand... I was wrong.
So what should we do? by UneducatedSixpack · 2014-01-06 08:38 · Score: 0

Buy guns? Any problem can be fixed by buying guns and ammo. If volcano attacks me I am going to shoot back.
1. Re:So what should we do? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  Buy guns? Any problem can be fixed by buying guns and ammo. If volcano attacks me I am going to shoot back.
  Only a good guy with a Super Volcano can stop Mother Nature with a Super Volcano.
Greater Crater plains by Mabhatter · 2014-01-06 08:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

The Great Plains will be really fertile again after that goes boom.
I don't see what the worry in the USA is... They're just "flyover states" they will just be a smoking crater for a few dozen years. The Appilacians and Rockies might keep the coasts from being utterly destroyed... But with no food and no resources because everything built will be knocked over it will be worse on them than the peeps that just go boom. It's like a couple of nuclear wars in a can.
No amount of "bunker" is going to save you because most of North America will be knocked over and/or on fire. Even if you get out (as youll be under feet of hot ash) there will be no place to go, no way to get there, the grounds itself will be baren for a dozen years like Mt St Hellen's.
1. Re:Greater Crater plains by judoguy · 2014-01-06 08:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No amount of "bunker" is going to save you because most of North America will be knocked over and/or on fire. Even if you get out (as youll be under feet of hot ash) there will be no place to go, no way to get there, the grounds itself will be baren for a dozen years like Mt St Hellen's.
  Listen to you, Mr. glass-half-empty.
  
  --
  Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
2. Re:Greater Crater plains by MarkvW · 2014-01-06 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  The ejected material is going to really screw up the climate. There will be all sorts of mass extinctions.
3. Re:Greater Crater plains by Billly+Gates · 2014-01-06 09:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No amount of "bunker" is going to save you because most of North America will be knocked over and/or on fire. Even if you get out (as youll be under feet of hot ash) there will be no place to go, no way to get there, the grounds itself will be baren for a dozen years like Mt St Hellen's.
  Listen to you, Mr. glass-half-empty.
  Actually these 2 graphs ya ya strange site show past eruption damage. People as far away as Houston and LA would die.
  It is a fact. The dust is broken up glass particles and traces of rock that will cut up your lungs from the inside out and then cement into rock inside them! A very painful and awful death as this is what killed the Romans in Pompeii rather than being burned to death. There lungs got eaten away and it rained the next day or two and cemented their bodies with the ash and preserved their bodies for 2,000 years.
  Now even if you live in Europe and feel you are safe the global nuclear winter will come complete with a full glacialization ice age. Crops will die and food will be scarce. Snow and freezing temperatures will fall well north and south into the tropics. Unless you live near the equator you wont be fine at all. Expect everyone to invade your country and kill you and your neighbors for food too as this land will be highly prized mixed with a new world where there wont be enough food for 6 billion people as 1/3 of it will be frozen tundra.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
4. Re:Greater Crater plains by rossdee · 2014-01-06 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  " They're just "flyover states" :
  Nobody is going to be doing any flying in the northern hemisphere for a long time. Remember what happened with that Icelandic volcano closing air corridors?
5. Re:Greater Crater plains by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you know what they said to folks about to die in the gas chamber, right?
  "Don't fight it; if you hold your breath, you'll just suffer more, hold it for like 5 second and then take a DEEP breath in - that's the easiest way out"
6. Re:Greater Crater plains by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 20:07 · Score: 0
  
  There lungs got eaten away and it rained the next day or two and cemented their bodies with the ash and preserved their bodies for 2,000 years.
  No, dude. They merely suffocated. And their bodies were not preserved for 2000 years; they decayed like any normal buried organic material, but left a pocket of space in the ash. When modern archeologists discovered these pockets, they poured in plaster to see what the shapes were... and discovered they were in the shape of people. The Pompeii plaster casts of individuals are not the preserved bodies themselves!
7. Re:Greater Crater plains by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  No amount of "bunker" is going to save you because most of North America will be knocked over and/or on fire. Even if you get out (as youll be under feet of hot ash) there will be no place to go, no way to get there, the grounds itself will be baren for a dozen years like Mt St Hellen's.
  Listen to you, Mr. glass-half-empty.
  Actually these 2 graphs ya ya strange site show past eruption damage. People as far away as Houston and LA would die.
  It is a fact. The dust is broken up glass particles and traces of rock that will cut up your lungs from the inside out and then cement into rock inside them! A very painful and awful death as this is what killed the Romans in Pompeii rather than being burned to death. There lungs got eaten away and it rained the next day or two and cemented their bodies with the ash and preserved their bodies for 2,000 years.
  Now even if you live in Europe and feel you are safe the global nuclear winter will come complete with a full glacialization ice age. Crops will die and food will be scarce. Snow and freezing temperatures will fall well north and south into the tropics. Unless you live near the equator you wont be fine at all. Expect everyone to invade your country and kill you and your neighbors for food too as this land will be highly prized mixed with a new world where there wont be enough food for 6 billion people as 1/3 of it will be frozen tundra.
  
  No amount of "bunker" is going to save you because most of North America will be knocked over and/or on fire. Even if you get out (as youll be under feet of hot ash) there will be no place to go, no way to get there, the grounds itself will be baren for a dozen years like Mt St Hellen's.
  Listen to you, Mr. glass-half-empty.
  Actually these 2 graphs ya ya strange site show past eruption damage. People as far away as Houston and LA would die.
  It is a fact. The dust is broken up glass particles and traces of rock that will cut up your lungs from the inside out and then cement into rock inside them! A very painful and awful death as this is what killed the Romans in Pompeii rather than being burned to death. There lungs got eaten away and it rained the next day or two and cemented their bodies with the ash and preserved their bodies for 2,000 years.
  Now even if you live in Europe and feel you are safe the global nuclear winter will come complete with a full glacialization ice age. Crops will die and food will be scarce. Snow and freezing temperatures will fall well north and south into the tropics. Unless you live near the equator you wont be fine at all. Expect everyone to invade your country and kill you and your neighbors for food too as this land will be highly prized mixed with a new world where there wont be enough food for 6 billion people as 1/3 of it will be frozen tundra.
  look you can snigger all you want but remember you too will be a
  victim.there wil be no escape for anyone.so laugh while you can.
  geological surveys in the last few years have shown an increasing
  rate of ground tilt due to the massive pressure caused by the very
  hot lava and superheated gases.if nothing is done the eruption is
  inevitable with the resulting grave consequences exceeding that of a
  nuclear conflict.
8. Re:Greater Crater plains by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  No glass is half-empty... (if you are considering a glass of water) one half is essentially air.
Article has no numbers by J'raxis · 2014-01-06 08:40 · Score: 1

One-in-a-billion is a thousand times more likely than one-in-a-trillion odds, right? I'm still not anywhere likely to win that bet, though.
The article doesn't even have any odds/numbers. Yet the headline contains "far greater." And then ends with this:

Dr Perrillat said there are no known supervolcanoes that are in danger of erupting in the foreseeable future, and it would take at least a decade or so for the magma pressure within a caldera to build up to a point where an eruption is likely.
In other words, there's no story here. Researchers figured out that the volcanoes can go off on their own rather than being precipitated by an earthquake, and this somehow translated to "far greater" by the hack writers who wrote this story.

--
Liberty in your lifetime
1. Re:Article has no numbers by minstrelmike · 2014-01-06 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Disagree.
  The perceived odds (not the "real" odds) have changed.
  If a supervolcano can only go off during an earthquake, well those don't happen continually. But if a supervolcano can just go off whenever, the odds have changed in the opinion of the oddsmakers (us). Granted, the actual chance of a supervolcano spewing has never changed regardless of our knowledge (imo but I'm not a quantum mechanic either).
2. Re:Article has no numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  You are apparently not a statistician, either. Events don't "have" probabilities. A probability is something that humans assign to events based on what we know about them.
  So, the odds change as we gain new information. Hopefully, they become more accurate as a predictive tool as our information increases. But in any case it is fair to say the odds have changed, since our information has changed.
3. Re:Article has no numbers by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-01-06 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  It really doesn't matter - even if we knew one was going to go off in three years, few people would change their lives. They'd wait until disaster struck and then try to steal from those who had done something (if not enough) to prepare.
  Some isolated communities (largely Mormons) might get through it, if they can hide well enough to remain undetected.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re:Article has no numbers by dala1 · 2014-01-06 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they do. Let's say you have a ten-sided die that is weighted on one side in such a way that nine comes up half the time while every other number has an equal opportunity. The probability of a nine coming up on a given roll is the same whether you know the die is weighted or not. Likewise, the odds of a volcano erupting have not changed at all with the introduction of new information.
Don't leave us in suspense! by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-06 08:41 · Score: 1

Researchers: Global Risk of Supervolcano Eruption Greater Than Previously Though
Though what? It'll only blow up America? There's a plan to move to Mars? I need closure!

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I smell franchise! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:41 · Score: 0

Sharkcanonado!
Those damn Mycon... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:45 · Score: 0

The Mycon are really going to screw us over here...
so is it time to panic? by roman_mir · 2014-01-06 08:47 · Score: 1

When is it not the time to panic? Wars, asteroids, volcanoes, global warming, the ozone layer, Y2K, the terrorists, swine flue, avian flue, Iraq, teletubbies.
If you are going to be worried about something, worry about something that you can personally change in your life, everything else is most likely out of your control completely, so don't bother worrying.
I'll give you real things to worry about: jobs, debt, destruction of currency (gov't caused inflation), destruction of your freedoms.
Those are the types of the things you should truly be concerned with, supervolcanos, black holes, terrorists and such are just a way to distract your attention from things that actually affect your life. If you die from a volcano, that will be the end of it, you most likely won't die from gov't created inflation, but you will really suffer from it, you and the generations to come.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:so is it time to panic? by BobMcD · 2014-01-06 09:20 · Score: 2
  
  While I do agree with the first thought (why worry if you can't change it), I have to point out that your second doesn't follow. Here's your list:
  jobs, debt, destruction of currency (gov't caused inflation), destruction of your freedoms.
  Jobs are a function of the economy, and unless you're Warren B, I don't think you can individually do much. Maybe you can start a business and hire a few people. Kind of like buying a Prius. You get to feel like you're helping, and by way of a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction, you probably are.
  Debt is a fact of life for most people, and inescapable for most of our governments world wide. These days they talk about reducing the deficit, which only means less debt. But the debt is assured. Now as an individual you can avoid going into debt, probably, but there are arguments for and against doing so. And your personal net worth isn't exactly a 'change the world' thing in most cases.
  Destruction of currency falls pretty much along the lines of that above.
  Freedoms can be defended as an individual, but they're going to make you a martyr for taking such action. It probably isn't recommended.
  Anyway, those are all horrible examples of what an individual should worry about. Maybe next time go with 'try not to be a dick to people', 'drive safely', and 'help each other out'. Those are not only attainable, but also have Prius-size impacts on the planet as a whole.
2. Re:so is it time to panic? by roman_mir · 2014-01-06 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  An individual can do something about those things. You can move, you can start your own business, you can look for another job, you can vote according to fiscal principles rather than nonsensical 'social justice' principles, you can invest in productive nations rather than in unproductive ones. You can escape debt personally even if you can't escape it as part of the nation, you can do plenty of things as an individual that can change your life where it concerns jobs, debt, inflation, etc., but you can't stop a black hole from falling on your head for example.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
Finally a cure for Global Warming by JoeyRox · 2014-01-06 08:48 · Score: 2

"Supervolcanoes represent the second most globally cataclysmic event - next to an asteroid strike - and they have been responsible in the past for mass extinctions, long-term changes to the climate and shorter-term 'volcanic winters' caused by volcanic ash cutting out the sunlight."
1. Re:Finally a cure for Global Warming by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-06 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  ... You know that removing particulate matter requirements from pollution laws has long been circulated as a possible solution to global warming, by way of lowering planetary albedo, right? Humans can trivially reverse the temperature changes if we're willing to suck up some really nasty air.
2. Re:Finally a cure for Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  It's working for China!
  Just ignore the huge increase in lung cancer rates. For every living, breathing animal.
3. Re:Finally a cure for Global Warming by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-06 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Long cancer isn't nearly the problem lung disease is when your particulate matter is high.
4. Re:Finally a cure for Global Warming by hey! · 2014-01-06 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  And it's 100% effective, just like curing diabetes with a bullet to the head.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"potential to wipe out civilization as we know it" by bob_super · 2014-01-06 08:48 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure a good portion of the world knows how to operate despite very dim sunlight and half of the US gone.
It takes power to make light to make food, and we can do that on a pretty decent scale, even if it takes burning the bodies of those who couldn't.
We're a pretty resilient pest.
triple threat by csumpi · 2014-01-06 08:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

killer volcano, killer warming and the killer earthquake

heck, for bonus let's throw a meteor in there, too

and the best thing? we can avoid all this, if we just create a tax for it!
1. Re:triple threat by sconeu · 2014-01-06 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Can we throw a Sharknado in there somewhere, too?
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I won't believe it by necro81 · 2014-01-06 08:57 · Score: 1

Until a grizzled Woody Harrelson tells me it is so!
It's Been Done by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Someone has actually written a novel called Sharcano .
Scientists recommend... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 08:58 · Score: 0

...Purchasing their new advanced anti-volcano raincoat. The product of extensive research.
This is why we need the NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:04 · Score: 0, Funny

If we're not monitoring your phone calls metadata, we won't know when the volcano plans to strike.
Excellent ! by tekrat · 2014-01-06 09:09 · Score: 1

How soon can we make that happen? Sounds like paradise, plus, we'll finally get rid of our do-nothing Congress.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1. Re:Excellent ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  plus, we'll finally get rid of our do-nothing Congress.
  
  I rather prefer a do-nothing Congress.
  As opposed to a Congress (and government in general) that feels it must always "do something".
  Just sayin'.
2. Re: Excellent ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  I would like a Congress that is kept very busy for a session of three months every two years, and out of session the rest of the time.
  A fellow can dream, can't he?
Can't such an eruption by vikingpower · 2014-01-06 09:12 · Score: 0, Troll

take place under Apple HQ ?? It would do only good civilization.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
1. Re:Can't such an eruption by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  take place under NSA HQ ?? It would do only good civilization.
  FTFY.
  Captcha: Rewire ( Ironic isn't it? )
Volcano Insurance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:13 · Score: 0

Hi - Just wondering where I can purchase affordable volcano insurance?
1. Re:Volcano Insurance? by edibobb · 2014-01-06 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'll sell you some. The underwriter ratings aren't high, but my intentions are good.
Let's relate this to global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:18 · Score: 0

So until yesterday there was no greater risk of a super volcano. Today there is. Scientist know this with 100 % accuracy because they are scientist and are never wrong. How about admitting we really don't know what the fuck is going on under the earth's crust. Nobody has been there. It is just a best guess using the latest best evidence available that perhaps a super volcano is more likely to erupt that previously thought. Nooo. Noone ever says that. Scientist are like Gods. They can see electrons with their eyeballs, they understand the earths climate soo totally that they know Global warming is a fact. Never mind that 20 years ago they knew with 100% certainty that the exact opposite was occurring. How about admitting scientists are human beings and not some all knowing Gods. How are creationists supposed to take scientists seriously when the do the exact same things as the creationists are doing. The date of the end of the world has been predicted by biblical scholars many a times. Each time the end of the world has not come, and they have to revise the date due to new biblical evidence. Yet the Bible is never wrongs. Similarly has many times have are infallible scientist had to revise the age or planet. Yet scientists are never wrong, and people are stupid inbred idiots if they don't believe every word they say.
1. Re:Let's relate this to global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  what the press reports scientists say, and what scientists actually say are two entirely different matters.
2. Re:Let's relate this to global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Did knocking over that strawman make you feel like a big tough guy?
Time to send this to the office sweaties by reovirus1 · 2014-01-06 09:19 · Score: 2

Quick, we don't have much time, lets end this on a high note...
1. Re:Time to send this to the office sweaties by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Bob in accounting has a problem with sweating but I don't think it would help
2. Re:Time to send this to the office sweaties by PPH · 2014-01-06 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'll take the sweeties. You can have the IT staff.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
More information needed from the article by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:26 · Score: 0

I want to know more about how it's all mankind's fault that it will erupt when it does!
What? No imminent cataclysm? by edibobb · 2014-01-06 09:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Dr Perrillat said there are no known supervolcanoes that are in danger of erupting in the foreseeable future."
Tricked again! The hysterical headline is exaggerated, and society as we know it survives another day.
1. Re:What? No imminent cataclysm? by Sockatume · 2014-01-06 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's quite categorically not something that the researchers concluded. Here's a non-bullshit version of the story from the BBC:
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25598050
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:"potential to wipe out civilization as we know by danlip · 2014-01-06 09:30 · Score: 1

I don't think you will get nearly enough energy from dead bodies. Maybe from dead trees but those will have already burned in the initial cataclysm. We can burn a lot more fossil fuels, or we can build a bunch of crappy nuclear power plants (built very fast and cheap with no regulation). And trying to manufacture enough greenhouses and lights to grow enough food for the world would take a long time too, plus the time for the first crops to mature, I doubt we have enough food stored up for very many people to survive. I'm sure the human race will survive but it will be very ugly.
Re:"potential to wipe out civilization as we know by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 09:32 · Score: 0

You only read half the phrase:
"potential to wipe out civilization as we know it"
I totally agree humans will remain despite a supervolcano explosion out of Yellowstone. Now even if you're not a US resident, think about how much you use that is manufactured in the US, or have supply chains managed by corporations in the US. Then think about what other countries use. Now imagine all of that suddenly gone, and "as we know it" becomes a pretty key phrase.
Vulcanology by rossdee · 2014-01-06 09:43 · Score: 1

Has anyone asked Leonard Nimoy, Jolene Blalock, or Tim Russ
1. Re:Vulcanology by hyades1 · 2014-01-06 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Or perhaps a fundamentalist rather than a vulcanologist?
  "Live long and Rapture"
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re:Global Cooling? by bobbied · 2014-01-06 09:53 · Score: 0

Anyone tell Al Gore about this?
We tried, but he's suck in the ice down south again and the satellite phone is on the fritz. We will air drop a message on the next health and welfare check, but unless he knows how to send smoke signals, we won't know if he got the message.
Got to go plant a few thousand trees now...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Need deeper analysis by sideslash · 2014-01-06 09:53 · Score: 1

I think we should nuke right in the middle of Yellowstone so we can see what lies beneath the surface.
Simple solution: by Tablizer · 2014-01-06 10:02 · Score: 1

Just smash an asteroid into the volcano to plug it up. Worked for the dinosaurs.....at least the plug-up part.

--
Table-ized A.I.
I'm having trouble with the unit of measure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:03 · Score: 0

If the super volcano were a Twinky, how big would it be?
1. Re:I'm having trouble with the unit of measure by TheRealHocusLocus · 2014-01-06 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  If the super volcano were a Twinky, how big would it be?
  According to this reputable source, the volume of a Twinkie is ~140 milliliters and the volume of the goo inside is 42.8 ml or ~30.5% of its total volume.
  If Yellowstone's magma chamber is its goo and its volume is 200 cubic kilometers (low estimate), then the Yellowstone Twinkie itself would have a volume of ~656 cubic kilometers. If Twikie's W:L:H dimensions follow the ratio 15:39:11 then the Twinkie would be ~18.2 kilometers on its longest side, or 716,535 inches.
  But supervolcanic calderas tend to form in roundish not Twinkie shapes, so it would be best to use the circular Ding Dong or its ellipsoidal counterpart, the Long Dong.
  
  --
  <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Finally! by dcw3 · 2014-01-06 10:17 · Score: 1

Well, there's some global warming that we could ALL agree on!

--
Just another day in Paradise
Better to relief the presure before it gets to hig by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 10:34 · Score: 0

Better let the presure out in a series of small eruptions than one big on.
The Next Cheap Oil by Etherwalk · 2014-01-06 10:40 · Score: 1

You're looking at having to dissapate 1000's of MT of energy somehow.
Sounds like the next cheap energy source--1 MT would be the yearly electricity consumption of greenland as of 2008; 1000 MT would be just one order of magnitude under the annual worldwide consumption. (Enough to power, say, South Korea for a year.)
Ha-Ha! Take THAT, Charlton Heston! by Greyfox · 2014-01-06 11:33 · Score: 1

THEY didn't blow it up! It blew ITSELF up! No bastards here!
Hmm... nothing we can do about it... go back to hiding our heads in the sand. On the plus side if I happen to be outside and it blows, it should be a pretty amazing sight for a minute or two before the shockwave arrives.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Ask China by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 12:16 · Score: 0

The Chinese are already trying this experiment let's wait a couple more years to see how it plays out.
1. Re:Ask China by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-07 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  We don't need to, we know what the early 1900s cities in the US were like. It was really awful, and people died of lung disease all the time.
Previous possibility by lq_x_pl · 2014-01-06 12:37 · Score: 1

So what was the probability at before this study was performed?
0.005% is significantly higher than 0.0005%, but neither is particularly alarming.

--
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
My Yellowstone plan: Thorium energy & buried g by TheRealHocusLocus · 2014-01-06 13:23 · Score: 5, Informative

People must take precautions to avoid breathing ash. While even wet cotton can help, the use of respirators is recommended because the finest particles can be as small as 10 microns.
While dry ash is not conductive, even a small amount of moisture produces a paste that is conductive enough to cause high voltage flash-overs. Tall pylons with ceramic insulators may manage to stay clean but electrical substations where ash can form piles, are especially vulnerable.
And if insulators accumulate ash after a rain or already have ice on them it's pretty much flash-pow grid down.
BBC did a great two hour docudrama depicting possible effects, Supervolcano [2006] along with a companion program Supervolcano.The Truth About Yellowstone
Beyond the ash fall there are long-term climate concerns. There have been two major eruptions that have affected climate severely in the Northern Hemisphere with a clear historical record, Tambora (1815) and Krakatoa (535AD). I cover these in this recent Slashdot post.
My plan, and I am being pretty annoying about it in the hope that it becomes everyone's plan -- is to fast-track the two-fluid Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor to commercial deployment in North America AS SOON AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE, specifically the 1GW unit design with multiple on-site units sharing core salt reprocessing infrastructure -- that is a best-fit for our base load grid supply. These plants would deliver an unprecedented level of safety even if they are modularly constructed and mass-produced, will continue to operate even if rail or roads are damaged, and can store years of fuel on-site.
In short, a best hope for survival under many disaster scenarios, both natural and man-made.
The electrical grid is more of a problem since its points of failure cover a wide area and the vulnerability extends to the transformers in your neighborhood. For the grid I advocate a build-out of buried High Voltage DC conduits to interface between the three major North American interconnects, and to progressively deliver bridge junctions that can route around regional failures.
In short, we should be powering up new base load energy and building cross-country energy pipelines -- in addition to oil pipelines.
Re-tooling the grid will take much more time and capital than the deployment of LFTR but it is no less important. One of the advantages to LFTR is that it need not be sited near a large source of coolant water, so (unlike water reactors) there is NO region of North America that cannot accommodate this technology, and these plants can be built as far away from population centers as desired.
But it cannot and will not happen without your help.
See my letters on energy,
To The Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senate
To whom it may concern, Halliburton Corporate
And see the fascinating Thorium Remix 2011 presentation.
Also, here is an excellent overview on HVDC pipelines: Roger W. Faulkner [2005]: Electric Pipelines for North American Power Grid Efficiency Security

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Underground? by stoicio · 2014-01-06 14:39 · Score: 2

Couldn't we all just dress warmer and eat seals and seaweed instead?
It's easier to move with the food.
I'm not much for underground....and seals are quite tasty as long as you have garlic or onions.
obligatory MIB by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 14:41 · Score: 0

There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!
Many, many, many = 10 by Roger+W+Moore · 2014-01-06 14:43 · Score: 2

Yellowstone super volcano is a planetary killer - or best scenario: many, many, many years of the equivalent of nuclear winter.
With "many, many, many years" meaning about 10 if you read the article (yes, I know it's slashdot...). However if you are worried about the more immediate effect then I'd rather be west than east of the super volcano given that the prevailing winds are westerlies and will distribute the ~1,000 cubic kilometres of ash mainly to the east of the eruption.

However there is some hope for the long term. With global warming predicted to hit +4C by around 2100 having a super volcanic eruption may actually be a good thing in a century or two.
sharkano by BonThomme · 2014-01-06 15:44 · Score: 1

now if it erupted sharks, that would be something...
They really are tasty compared to the alternative by stoicio · 2014-01-06 17:23 · Score: 1

....what!!...?
I'm no monster. The last ice age had most of the worlds water up on land.
The majority of northern atlantic humans survived by hanging around the intertidal zones eating
seals and sea-veggies.
A super volcano would cause another ice age.
The resulting die-off would reduce the human population to levels
where eating seals would no longer be a hardship on the environment.
Living in a cave underground is a near certain path to starvation.
Seals are a good, practical, food with a strong ice-age-nutrition track record.
Race by hcs_$reboot · 2014-01-06 19:01 · Score: 1

Ok, so we have
- Global warming harsh effects
- Global thermonuclear war
- and now Supervolcanoes
So which is gonna happen first?

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Chances ... by Evil+Pete · 2014-01-06 19:37 · Score: 1

... of it happening in the next few hundred years: very slim. Prospects of stopping it if it was going to happen: zero. Though I wouldn't recommend underground nuclear tests at Yellowstone.

--
Bitter and proud of it.
1. Re:Chances ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  Totally unrelated to this, but I am the AC that posted in the feminism thread and which post you liked. I put this (and another, similar post from today) up at wordpress, in the case that someone thinks it is a worthwhile addition to the discussion:
  https://perfecthell.wordpress.com/
Meanwhile, in North Carolina... by mangu · 2014-01-06 22:48 · Score: 1

Your failure to predict it will still get you arrested in Italy.
But if you predict it you will be arrested in North Carolina.
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 01:03 · Score: 0

Greater than previously though?
That makes no fucking sense.
Happiest Place on Earth by BisuDagger · 2014-01-07 01:17 · Score: 1

We should all retreat to Disney. They have a complete under ground tunneling system and a functional economy using MickeyBucks. What better place to take shelter when it's about to become a small world?
pop the cork, creatively by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-07 08:52 · Score: 0

Take about 100km of oil pipeline and twist it, say into a dozen looping coils. Put a drill and a stopper on one end. (Point it *away* from Canada.) And then sink that puppy into the magma.
Could something like that dissipate the energy?
1. Re:pop the cork, creatively by kellymcdonald78 · 2014-01-07 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it would dissipate about the same amount of energy as needed to turn 100km of oil pipeline into steel vapor
Is Lower Magma Density as sign of gas buildup? by bbsalem · 2014-01-07 16:22 · Score: 1

A read through the linked article, not a primary source, said that researchers in France were about to use a technique to measure the density of the magma in the chamber beneath the Yellowstone caldera. A magma chamber has been known and mapped to some extent for some time. The issue with the lower density portion of the melt may mean that gasses are building up in that phase and that their pressure on the rock above could be a precursor to an eruption. I know from other sources that there have been changes in the tilt and overall shape of the land in the caldera which are taken to mean changes in the disposition of the magma below. It is quite hard to correctly identify the signs that an eruption is coming over short time-scales, very much like the problem of predicting earthquakes. Geologists can more readily tell you where such events will come and with great confidence, but when is altogether another matter in a human time scale. Even events such as earthquakes, emission of gasses, and changes in GPS positions don't tell you when such an event would occur. In fact, we may not have the means to mitigate the effects of a supervolcanic eruption even if we knew it was coming anytime soon.
not to worry though right? by superwiz · 2014-01-07 17:55 · Score: 1

Becuase the Global Warming will do us in first... right about now... Peer reviewed... blah blah blah... Fox news.... something? let it go.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Beyond EPIC to be Biblical levels by wganz · 2014-01-08 05:31 · Score: 1

of starvation. The prevailing wind patterns are to the southeast. From Yellowstone Park to the Gulf of Mexico is the disdained 'fly over land' that produces 60% of the world's food. Destroy that, and the world would look like an Ethiopian refugee camp within a year. Nothing to look forward to having occur during your lifetime or even the next century or two.
Re:My Yellowstone plan: Thorium energy & burie by esecallum · 2014-01-08 10:38 · Score: 1

hat right laugh dw. laugh. laugh while you can for the end of the world is neigh. you keep on laughing laughing for soon you will laugh no more and i will have the last and ultimate laugh for soon for soon for soon you will be grovelling in the dirt looking for a blade of grass to eat. thats right dw dw the volcano pressure is going up and up up and up and soon and very soon it will go go BOOM! in a gigantic BOOM!!!!!! and the entire planet will be covered in soot and dust ASH and no more sunshine and no more crops and no more cows cause they will no more meat for you dw. no more tea in the sunny afternoon while you watch the cricket NO MORE WHITE SHIRTS FOR YOU. no more full bellies for you. you will need to stock up with baked beans for 3 years in advance and anarchy will reign. the have-nots will tear you apart for a grain for a grain of rice. it will be choas.choas. you will crawl on all fours with the flag of the neds fluttering in the breeze overhead dw. BUT the above vision can be averted dw. listen to me to me take action as i have specified above and we could save the planet from ruin. think of posterity dw dw posterity if we save the planet you could get a footnote in history. history that right dw. everyone except craves a place in history.even you. i urge you i urge you to print these posts and spread the news to everyone and contact dunderheads Blair Bush and save civilisation. remember me. remember if we take action now we walk tall and proud. if you dont we grovel in the dirt looking for worms and grubs to eat. that right dw. start remembering this. remember this when you look at your loved ones. remember me them remember what will happen to them. so get to work now and spread the news right now. A
"Trigger of supervolcanos found" ? by doccus · 2014-01-10 10:30 · Score: 1

Well, that was the headline in my "slashback" mailing.. Bloody lie! It was the *lack* of any thrigger needed, that was found. Just why do the new editors feel it necessary to resort to Nat'l Enquirer style captions these days? I thought there was suopposed to be "honor among geeks"...