Researchers: Global Risk of Supervolcano Eruption Greater Than Previously Though

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."

Comments

Puzzling

[wcrowe]

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.

Can eruptions like the be averted?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Can eruptions like the be averted?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Can eruptions like the be averted?

[wjcofkc]

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.

Re:Can eruptions like the be averted?

[akozakie]

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!

Re:Priorities

[maverickgunn]

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.

Re:Extinction is good in this case because...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Extinction is good in this case because...

[lgw]

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.