Slashdot Mirror


New Computer Model Predicts Impact of Yellowstone Volcano Eruption

An anonymous reader writes Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have used a program named Ash 3D to predict the impact of a Yellowstone volcano eruption, and found that cities within 300 miles from Yellowstone National Park may get covered by up to three feet of ash. From the article: "Ash3D helped the researchers understand how the previous eruptions created a widespread distribution of ash in places in the park's periphery. Aside from probing ash-distribution patterns, the Ash3D can also be used to identify potential hazards that volcanoes in Alaska may bring."

121 comments

  1. Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow ... there is a lot of talk about the Yellowstone volcano. Do the authorities know more than they are saying to the public? Why all of the sudden interest in Yellowstone? Is an eruption imminent and we are not being told?

    1. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We now have at least some capabilities (in terms of possible solutions, technologies, reduction or even prevention theories having more merit now and etc.) on reducing the effects of a Yellowstone eruption compared to a decade and more before when there were none, i assume. So that's why there's a big focus.
      Also, it is a big focus now because the Iceland volcano ash eruption a few years back showcased how disruptive to economy and life it can be, and it is a pea in comparison to Yellowstone.
      What with all the weird climate and geographical happenings for the past few years with all kinds of records being broken in varying countries and in varying ways, and what with unusual things happening in countries where such things weren't a norm (snow in Egypt or wherever near N. Africa, unusual tornadoes in western europe, seasons being all crapped up in Europe alone etc. etc.), i guess there's good reason to be focused on Yellowstone because it is pretty damn unstable and it is well past its traditional exploding point.
      That's all i can gather methinks.

    2. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by niftymitch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wow ... there is a lot of talk about the Yellowstone volcano. Do the authorities know more than they are saying to the public? Why all of the sudden interest in Yellowstone? Is an eruption imminent and we are not being told?

      As a geologist the impact, size and risk of Yellowstone has been an ongoing learning experience.

      Yellowstone like large eruptions and large asteroid impacts are global game changers.
      Any that wake up in the morning and think about this get concerned.

      Both issues invoke magical thinking... we could make the problem go away by -________-.

      What we do know is that historic eruptions did blanket North America with ash,
      we also have some decent data about how many and how often and when we
      might be due...

      The un-interesting bit is the mumble foo about a computer program. Some think
      this is adding to the knowledge but the reality is hand drawn maps from
      20 years ago tell the same OMG KYAGB story.

      Add regions of Indonesia to the list right along side the Mammoth Mtn. caldera in California.

      These game changing big events are well beyond any FEMA planning.
      Have a good cup of tea and enjoy the fireworks.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    3. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      isnt this what happened in pompeii? everybody got buried. that was what, 2000 years ago? what would be especially bad is if tehre were a big volcanic eruption and an emp blast at the same time, so all our electronic resources went down when we needed them most!

    4. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're doomed if Yellowstone erupts within the next 500 years or so... we've known that for many decades. It'll be back to the Dark Ages for mankind, or worse.

    5. Re: Do they know more than they let on? by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, like, how much would it suck to be in a deadly car crash and get struck by lightning, like, at the same time, doood??!

    6. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      isnt this what happened in pompeii?

      No. Pompeii was destroyed by a pyroclastic flow, which is only a danger in the immediate vicinity of the eruption. The danger from Yellowstone is that it could blanket much of the continent with ash.

    7. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Yes. They found gold, and now they don't want everybody and his uncle setting off with a tin pan to Idaho.

    8. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      ...The un-interesting bit is the mumble foo about a computer program. Some think this is adding to the knowledge but the reality is hand drawn maps from 20 years ago tell the same OMG KYAGB story.

      Right!
      They could have saved a bunch of time and money with:

      #!/usr/bin/perl
      print "You are well and truly fucked!\n";

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    9. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Kiffer · · Score: 1

      isnt this what happened in pompeii?

      No. Pompeii was destroyed by a pyroclastic flow, which is only a danger in the immediate vicinity of the eruption. The danger from Yellowstone is that it could blanket much of the continent with ash.

      Well... my understanding is that Pompeii was covered in hot falling ash over a period of about 6 hours, Herculaneum was hit by pyroclastic flows.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

    10. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

      i think if there were a pyroclastic flow heading toard me I would hop in my pool and hold my breath at the bottom. then after the heat wave had passed I would climb on my roof so I don't get buried by the ash. would that work?

    11. Re: Do they know more than they let on? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      it's possible that an emp could trigger a volcano, so it's not as crazy as it sounds. car crash and lightning aren't connected, you're just trolling me.

    12. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Nimey · · Score: 2

      You're trolling and not actually that stupid, right?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    13. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    14. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow ... there is a lot of talk about the Yellowstone volcano. Do the authorities know more than they are saying to the public? Why all of the sudden interest in Yellowstone?

      Because people got tired of hearing about extinction-level asteroids... The Yellowstone Supervolcano was just the next ready standby to scare the public and get more viewers. I suppose it was the Y2K thing that taught the media herd that terrifying the public with BS is profitable, and they've kept it up ever since.

      Sure, we've got Ebola now, but it's not as visual and a bit more mundane than the crazy and exotic ways to end civilization that the media finds most profitable.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the interesting points is that the modern human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) have never witnessed full Yellowstone eruption. Even the Neanderthal human was barely here. If Toba eruption is anything to compare to, the event will push human evolution - cultural if not biological - to a new area.

    16. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1, Funny

      These game changing big events are well beyond any FEMA planning.

      Planning or not, FEMA will always do a Heck of a Job

    17. Re: Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't no solutions: we cannot stop a volcano from erupting and our options to reduce the damages are limited, mostly to evacuation of the affected areas. Regardless what a multitude of quaint SF and disaster movies have deluded you into believing, when Nature shits on us we drown in shit, we can only move people away and rebuild. And with the economy being what it is, we probably can't do even that. Science and technology are lame, Nature reigns over us forever.

    18. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd need to hold your breath for a considerable amount of time. I hope you brought a scuba tank -- and have a really deep pool, because it's not unlikely that the pool would boil empty in a very short time.

    19. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      i think if there were a pyroclastic flow heading toard me I would hop in my pool and hold my breath at the bottom. then after the heat wave had passed I would climb on my roof so I don't get buried by the ash. would that work?

      No, it would just turn you into a delicious pool sized bowl of soup.

    20. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Are the officials buying gold, firearms, and agricultural land on other continents at an increased rate? If the answer is "yes", start doing the same as soon as possible!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    21. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people got tired of hearing about extinction-level asteroids...

      People evaluate everything under the point of view of a single, selfish, emotional being with a limited life span experience. We, as a species, should know better. Extintion-level events are real and we are ill-prepared to face them, even when we know about them and we have the means and the knowledge to be prepared.

    22. Re: Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard the theory about nuking the volcano just before a suspected eruption as an attempt to seal the crust over it. RUN if they try it! Too much pressure under this one.

    23. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      [crunches pickle]This is wild. This is really wild!

      The government knows all about this, man! Maybe you should read up about it on my blog.

    24. Re: Do they know more than they let on? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    25. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      I just heard Phil Plait talking about coronal mass ejections wiping out satellites and the power grid, and possibly small electronics as well. That's my current favorite non-asteroid doomsday scenario. No direct danger to life or limb, it just takes out everything that makes modern civilization work. Hilarity ensues.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    26. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

      there's so much heat content in the pool I doubt that if the surface air went to 500 degrees for a bit it would make much difference.

    27. Re: Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw that movie, war of the worlds right?

    28. Re: Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nice 7/10 troll. Would have given 6/10 but the fact that you really made an effort to deface wikipedia to support it puts it well above average in my opinion. Well done, but keep trying for perfection!

    29. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignore this troll. He defaces Wikipedia to provide citations for his bullshit. http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    30. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People evaluate everything under the point of view of a single, selfish, emotional being with a limited life span experience."

      Which is exactly how we came to be the domineering species we are today. Because that's what a species is - multiple copies of a "single, selfish, emotional being with a limited life span experience.". There is nothing wrong with being that whatsoever.

      But of course you know best what our priorities should ~really~ be.

    31. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by doccus · · Score: 1

      Good question. If us regular plebes obsess over it , is one thing, but when officials obsess, then is it time to worry?.Like Mt St Helens, It may be preceded by a noticeable quake, perhaps on the west coast. Check for missing pets. Like now. mine has never strayed afar for more than 2 hours, but now it's been 24 and missing. Others in the park I live in are having odd pet behavior too, and we live in SW Canada (same as the Pacific NW USA) Perhaps more of y'all keep your eyes out?

    32. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      FWIW, a lot of the Y2K non-event was a result of a lot of hard work leading up to it. We might well be able to stop an asteroid. We aren't going to stop Yellowstone.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      FWIW, a lot of the Y2K non-event was a result of a lot of hard work leading up to it.

      No it wasn't. The Russians didn't go crazy over it like we did, and yet the year rollover didn't cause them to accidentally nuke us to the stone age.

      We might well be able to stop an asteroid. We aren't going to stop Yellowstone.

      By the time we've got the technology to deflect an asteroid, we'll probably similarly be able to drill down into a caldera and release the pressure in strategic locations.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    34. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by Sciath · · Score: 1

      That's a nice thought, (species) selfishness = dominance. Aren't you forgetting something? How about time? We MAY be temporarily a technically superior species but certainly not the longest surviving one. Birds, reptiles and in particular insects have survived far longer. Ants (and bees) for one have a very "organized" almost altruistic social structure and is one of the longest surviving species. I suppose one could argue what difference does it make because ants dont have airplanes, computers, cars, firearms, etc. The point being, (and this kind of addresses your dominance observation) what good is dominance if it's only temporary? Isnt survivability ultimately the end goal? Homo Sapiens have only been around for a geologic and biological blink of an eye. So any accomplishments we've made only really matters IF they translate into actual long term species survival. And at the rate we are reproducing, fouling the air, water, soil, etc. one cannot reasonably expect homo sapiens to last anywhere near another fifty thousand years.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    35. Re:Do they know more than they let on? by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      To repeat, Y2K was a non-event because of lots of work leading up to it. As with anything with the potential to go wrong, there was a lot of overhype, but there were a lot of real problems that were averted.

      We do have the tech to take a darn good shot at deflecting an asteroid. It would be really expensive (but cheap given the alternative), and it wouldn't necessarily work, but we could probably nudge an asteroid, and if we tracked it far enough in advance of the collision that's all it would take. I don't even know how we're going to stop Yellowstone. Drilling into a caldera to relieve the pressure sounds way optimistic to me. How do you make sure it doesn't relieve all at once (possibly by freeing gas dissolved in magma)?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Pleasantly Surprised by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Funny

    That the Title does not read: 'New Model Predicts You're Doom' Or: 'Volcano Going to Rain Death on Eastern America'

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Pleasantly Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be upset if it said "you're doom," too, but probably not for the same reason as you.

    2. Re:Pleasantly Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be upset if it said "you're doom," too, but probably not for the same reason as you.

      QFT. Dr. Doom hates being outed, especially by stochastic models.

    3. Re:Pleasantly Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      'Bitcoin-Financed Raspberry Pi Generates 3D Printout of Imminent Yellowstone Caldera Destroying Mankind; MPAA Claims Exclusive Rights'

    4. Re:Pleasantly Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume he's referring to this incident from the amazing show Frisky Dingo:
      http://www.adultswim.com/videos/frisky-dingo/doom

    5. Re:Pleasantly Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doom2 owns you.

    6. Re:Pleasantly Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm Doom!

  3. 300 Miles context by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Informative

    Putting that into context, a circle with the radius of 300 miles produces an area 282743 mi^2 or 732301 km^2. Which is moderately bigger than Texas and about 10% of the area of the continental USA.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting that into context, a circle with the radius of 300 miles produces an area 282743 mi^2 or 732301 km^2. Which is moderately bigger than Texas and about 10% of the area of the continental USA.

      It could smother Texas? Oh, that would be nice if a volcano smothered Texas with ash! It would surely make US politics much more sane!

      I was just reading some of the comments above about relieving the pressure and thought that people were treating this as if it is like some big huge zit to squeeze the pus out of. Now that you have likened it to Texas I am beginning to see where they are coming from on this.

    2. Re: 300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, do we move Texas to Yellowstone or vice versa?

    3. Re:300 Miles context by PPH · · Score: 1

      Can we have that in football fields please?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit more context. 282,743 sq. mi. is 9.06% the size of the Contiguous United States (3,120,426.47 sq mi / 8,081,867.46 sq km), or 7.47% of the total land area of the continental USA (3,785,810.51 sq mi / 9,805,204.21 sq km), and 7.43% of the total U.S.A. territory (3,805,943.26 sq mi / 9,857,347.79 sq km). (Source: List of U.S. states and territories by area)

    5. Re:300 Miles context by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

      Putting that into context, a circle with the radius of 300 miles produces an area 282743 mi^2 or 732301 km^2. Which is moderately bigger than Texas and about 10% of the area of the continental USA.

      Im sorry, but the context is insufficient. How many libraries of congress is it?

    6. Re:300 Miles context by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      About 140 million

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit. How are we going to watch all those games?

    8. Re:300 Miles context by fermion · · Score: 2

      To put it into more context, the area we talking about is so sparsely population that is should be classified as frontier and not a state. The real, short term damage, is most going to be agricultural. However long term any eruption is going to beneficial as the climate changes and the area becomes even more important important for agriculture.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Northamerican football or World football? Or Austroyan Rules, Mate?

    10. Re:300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put it into more context, the area we talking about is so sparsely population that is should be classified as frontier and not a state.

      Quite a bias there. I suppose Canada shouldn't be a country, nor Australia, nor Russia, nor most of the countries in South America, Africa, and central Asia.

    11. Re:300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd hate to be one of the ~40,000 people in Bozeman if Yellowstone erupted. It's only 90 miles away.

    12. Re:300 Miles context by lgw · · Score: 1

      I think you're off by a few orders of magnitude. This would be a much bigger deal than the year without a summer, which caused mass starvation. The short term damage would be a significant percentage of everything starving to death. There would be next to no crop land left in all of North America for decades, perhaps centuries. Depending on how much ejecta there was, it might well tip us over into the next ice age (well, technically, the next glaciation period in the ongoing Quaternary ice age).

      And if you're worried about climate change, a bit of warming's got nothing on the damage the return of the glaciers would do.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:300 Miles context by careysub · · Score: 2

      I think you're off by a few orders of magnitude. This would be a much bigger deal than the year without a summer, which caused mass starvation. The short term damage would be a significant percentage of everything starving to death. There would be next to no crop land left in all of North America for decades, perhaps centuries.

      It is worth noting that currently the world only maintains a 74 day supply of grain. A super-eruption of this kind would effectively shut down agriculture everywhere. About half of the world's grain is directly consumed as food, so if we immediately divert all grain use (feed lots, fuel and industrial use, etc.) to direct basic food use we could double that to 148 days, then we run out completely.

      Of course this ideal model of even distribution is not reality: poorer places and food importers run out much faster, richer and food producing places would last longer - maybe a year? But the dramatic cooling which prevents crop production would probably last a number of years. All of the major food crops are sub-tropical species whose productivity are very sensitive to temperature. Even after the period of outright crop failure ends, productivity will be reduced. And as lgw states, the grain belt in the U.S. (~15% of world grain production) would be out of production entirely long after the direct cooling from the ash dissipated.

      Another reference point is the Great Famine of 1315-1317 presumably caused by the eruption of Mt. Tarawera in New Zealand, which ejected about 6 cubic kilometers of ash, only 0.6% of a Yellowstone super eruption. The Great Famine resulted from two years of crop failure, with normal food supplies not being restored until 1325. Depending on region 10-25% of the population of Europe died. (The Black Death showed up 22 years later, the poor health of those who lived through the famine perhaps contributing to its development and toll.)

      It would be safe to estimate that the majority of the world's population would die, probably a large majority.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    14. Re:300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the area we talking about is so sparsely population

      Wow, you be speaking most goodly.

    15. Re:300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your parameters are insufficient without a density considered and predetermined. But it would be about 14,188,377,414,682 phone books (assuming 8x10" each).

    16. Re:300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Introducing perhaps the only new growth industry.. Painless "do-it-yourself" suicide kits. Seriously. I wonder, actually, what the moral implications of suicide would be, given the circumstances.What if being seperated from medical help would lead to a long, drawn out form of death? Such as, in my case which would likely be 2 weeks. Let me tell youi if a tsunami is coming I sure ain't going for higher ground...

  4. BBC Supervolcano model by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I loved the neat 3D simulator the BBC fabricated for their docudrama Supervolcano. After the run one of the geologists (played by Gary Lewis) says, "[laughing] That's great... and if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their little green asses hoppin' around, eh? [...] You're letting yourself be spooked by a video game!"

    Great TEOTWAWKI drama, decent science, I recommend it: Supervolcano Ep1, Supervolcano Ep2, and the companion factual documentary Supervolcano.The Truth About Yellowstone which re-uses CGI footage made for the drama between interviews.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:BBC Supervolcano model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, it was nice to see that again.

  5. Very old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is ancient news and Ash3D doesn't really bring anything new to the table in terms of data. Although it is a neat way to visualize the ash coverage, but in no way does it predict if it's going to have a little burp or let out a massive belch.

  6. Wait. Wasn't this already simulated... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ...back in 2009?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  7. Food, water, climate change by myid · · Score: 2

    An article by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) briefly mentions climate change, but the article is mostly about how much ash that would fall on the continental US. The article also says, "... multiple inches of ash can damage buildings, block sewer and water lines, and disrupt livestock and crop production ...".

    Those are my main concerns - Ash on the ground disrupting the production of food and clean water and getting them to people, and ash in the atmosphere causing climate change.

  8. If yellow stone blows by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    How many miles away you are and how much ash you get will be the least of your concerns.

    Once the ash cloud encompasses the globe, we all freeze/starve to death within 10 years anyway. Unless someone comes up with a way to clean the air out before its too late, then how far away you are will matter..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:If yellow stone blows by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      How many miles away you are and how much ash you get will be the least of your concerns.

      Once the ash cloud encompasses the globe, we all freeze/starve to death within 10 years anyway. Unless someone comes up with a way to clean the air out before its too late, then how far away you are will matter..

      Won't affect me. I don't believe in global cooling either.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:If yellow stone blows by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Won't impact anyone.

      10 years? We'll all have long past starved to death. Yellowstone blowing big is a mass extinction event, period, for many species. It's probably safe to say that most large carnivores, globally, wouldn't survive.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:If yellow stone blows by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Won't impact anyone.

      10 years? We'll all have long past starved to death. Yellowstone blowing big is a mass extinction event, period, for many species. It's probably safe to say that most large carnivores, globally, wouldn't survive.

      Maybe it's the Rapture.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: If yellow stone blows by ovit · · Score: 2

      It erupts every 600 thousand years... While things like bears are probably somewhat different over that span, they certainly could not have evolved completely in that time.. Which to me means there must be plenty of survivors when this occurs.

    5. Re:If yellow stone blows by hierofalcon · · Score: 2

      No, not the rapture. But it could create conditions that are described in passages of Revelation post-Rapture.

    6. Re:If yellow stone blows by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It's probably safe to say that most large carnivores, globally, wouldn't survive.

      But they'd have a great time eating all of the herbivores that die of starvation ... at least until they run out.

    7. Re: If yellow stone blows by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It erupts every 600 thousand years... While things like bears are probably somewhat different over that span, they certainly could not have evolved completely in that time.. Which to me means there must be plenty of survivors when this occurs.

      The hot spot moves over time.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re: If yellow stone blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that you can stand on a cliff's edge and see the different basins within basins formed by the subsequent eruptions of Yellowstone, I can tell you that it doesn't move very much.

    9. Re: If yellow stone blows by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature... THe Yellowstone hot spot does indeed move. Some info on the Hawaiian hotspot also, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynam... You could go all pedantic on me and say that the spots don't move, the land over them does. But that would be nicking at pits.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:If yellow stone blows by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      While i agree most everything would die out, i still think that we as a species would make it 10 years or so. ( this is approx ) Locally of course that wouldn't be the case and you would see mass death, but i think a few would hang on a while using some extreme methods.

      Could we make it long enough for things to improve then slowly repopulate/rebuild? There is always a chance, but not a great one.

      This of course assumes we are not already colonizing mars or something, with the ability to come back at some point. Then at least the concept of mankind would survive.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  9. Important Data Omitted by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    The article does not make clear who wants the funding that this scare story is supposed to generate.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  10. 300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuck by Chas · · Score: 1

    At 300 miles, the largest city that'll get hit will be Billings, MT. Population 110K.

    I'm not saying it won't be fairly devastating to lots of small towns in lower Montana, Wyoming and parts of Idaho and Utah.

    But a vast swath of that is essentially nowhere.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuck by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But a vast swath of that is essentially nowhere.

      Not counting the huge amount of our food that comes from those places.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuck by dumuzi · · Score: 1

      I happen to live in bumblefuck you insensitive clod.

    3. Re:300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, you value some people's lives less than others.

      How ugly.

    4. Re:300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuck by Chas · · Score: 1

      I happen to live in bumblefuck you insensitive clod.

      Well then! You have my condolences!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    5. Re:300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuck by Chas · · Score: 1

      In other words, you value some people's lives less than others.

      How ugly.

      Nononono. You're misreading.

      Now, if Yellowstone goes *Poof* and puts down 3 feet of ash in the appropriate area, we're talking maybe a million people who're dealing with 3 feet of ash.

      That's basically 1/3rd of the population of Chicago (one city).

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re:300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuck by Chas · · Score: 1

      But a vast swath of that is essentially nowhere.

      Not counting the huge amount of our food that comes from those places.

      From Wyoming? Seriously. The majority of Wyoming's income is mineral production and tourism. Sure, tourism is going to take a whopping hit for a while. And the mines will probably see a short term hit.

      (Note: Unless the eruption is especially destructive. Then, there's a lot more to worry about than a few feet of ash.

      One of the BIG hits would probably be the short term effect on coal mining. Illinois tends to import much of its coal (yes, one of the largest coal producing states in the union IMPORTS coal) from Wyoming. This is because most of the coal produced in the state has a high sulfur content (which can lead to acid rain). And most of the coal-fired plants in the state aren't outfitted to properly burn such coal. As Illinois is also one of the top 5 energy EXPORTERS, this could have trickle-down effects.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    7. Re:300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuck by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      From Wyoming? Seriously.

      Well, you did say, "Montana, Wyoming and parts of Idaho and Utah" ... which is more than Wyoming. Lots of cattle throughout those four states. Lots of agriculture in Idaho, timber in Montana. Anyway, those states together produce just under 10% of the grain and ranch output we consume - many billions per year worth. Considering the just-in-time nature of the country's food supply, loss of it would be very non-trivial. We're also talking about herd destruction, which would have a lasting impact beyond the immediate absence of what would be going to market at any given time. That sort of destruction would quite suck, and we're not even talking about the industries that are present in places like Salt Lake City. Let's hope it just doesn't happen any time soon.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, as everybody knows, dealing with a covering of ash less than three feet has no impact whatsoever.

      I'd like to know the radii for two feet, one foot, six inches, three inches and one inch coverages before we dismiss this as only a problem for people in the boonies.

  11. Here is a map that shows the ash coverage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm?clat=44.427963&clng=-110.58845500000001&r=482.8032001844076&lc=FFFFFF&lw=1&fc=00FF00&fs=true

    1. Re:Here is a map that shows the ash coverage. by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Informative

      First, I'm not sure if you made that yourself, or what, but that's just a circle of X radius around Yellowstone - that might be useful if the Earth had no atmosphere, I guess?

      Prevailing winds and jet stream guarantee a more distributed pattern downwind, significantly different than a simple circle.

      BTW, the original article is missing pretty much anything of substance, and is written atrociously: "...In the Midwest, a few centimeters of ash is projected to be plummeted while coastal cities will have a few millimeter of ash buildup..."
      "...to be plummeted..."?

      AN ACTUAL MAP FROM ASH 3d:
      http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx...

      And an actual article that explains that whole "sciencey" stuff:
      http://phys.org/news/2014-08-y...
      Their slightly more substantive version of the above paragraph:
      "...In the simulated modern-day eruption scenario, cities within 500 kilometers (311 miles) of Yellowstone like Billings, Montana, and Casper, Wyoming, would be covered by centimeters (inches) to more than a meter (more than three feet) of ash. Upper Midwestern cities, like Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Des Moines, Iowa, would receive centimeters (inches), and those on the East and Gulf coasts, like New York and Washington, D.C. would receive millimeters or less (fractions of an inch). California cities would receive millimeters to centimeters (less than an inch to less than two inches) of ash while Pacific Northwest cities like Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, would receive up to a few centimeters (more than an inch)...."

      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:Here is a map that shows the ash coverage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circles are very useful! Just look at how many you used in your post.

    3. Re:Here is a map that shows the ash coverage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't a circle, it is a polygon.

    4. Re:Here is a map that shows the ash coverage. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      and those on the East and Gulf coasts, like New York and Washington, D.C. would receive millimeters or less (fractions of an inch).

      I find that difficult to believe. Mount Saint Helens dropped several millimeters of ash in Denver. A super volcano should be dropping more than that MUCH further away.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  12. Don't worry... only a computer model by Tanuki64 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since computer models and simulations are rarely 100% precise one can ignore them. See climate models. There is no climate change and probably no Yellowstone volcano either. Probably not even a place with the name 'Yellowstone'.

    1. Re:Don't worry... only a computer model by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Even if you can simulate every atom in the atmosphere for such a situation, we are talking about fluid dynamics! The least predictable thing not really known to man or god. Best you can do is guess general trends for short periods of time or in the case of climate models, you have to get extremely general to be at all accurate.

      This is worse than accurately simulating a human brain and ending up with intelligence (without preloading a living brain scan; even so, it would be silly to think the machine would predict YOU. just as an instant clone of you would diverge from you.)

    2. Re:Don't worry... only a computer model by pipingguy · · Score: 0

      ...in the case of climate models, you have to get extremely general to be at all accurate.

      Or just do 25 different model runs with different inputs and then pick the one that came closest to actual measurements. Then say, "See? Computer climate modelling is valid!".

    3. Re:Don't worry... only a computer model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, scientists have confirmed the existence of Jellystone Park.

    4. Re:Don't worry... only a computer model by fygment · · Score: 1

      ".. extremely general to be at all accurate ..." Just think about that and what it means. Now think a bit harder.

      You also have to know what assumptions are made in the model to 'generalise' it.

      And you have to know just how 'fragile' the mode is, how does it hold up to deviations, perturbations.

      And then after you've run the model a hundred times and it matches closely the training data (there has to be some), you really have no idea of how it performs as a predictive model.

      No shame in that because that is the nature of scientific exploration. BUT you are the fool if you bet your money or your life on it.

      --
      "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    5. Re:Don't worry... only a computer model by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Oh, I did think about it. Accuracy in general predictions is different than Accuracy in specific detailed predictions. We can do a great job predicting it will be freezing in December; that is highly accurate and our model of the system is good enough for that. We can't accurately tell you that much about next week. Now perhaps I should have used Precision instead but I was trying to be easier to understand... A great simulation of the real fluid dynamic hell would have poor precision which would contradict previous simulated results... there is a point of diminishing returns but we do not know what that point is. Perhaps we are there already and should stop investing in that direction? doubt it.

      I am sure not going to be a fool and pray to some higher power to show me a sign or place trust in some believer's ignorant guessing... Or people who simply like their money so much they don't dare "risk it" even though it is usually never risk but simply selfishness. They invent defensive behaviors to justify being self centered pricks who want nothing to change (because that benefits them in the present.) A lot of funding has been going into attacking the progress of science in this area.

      It doesn't help people to bash the best stuff we currently have. It's not a junker car that is going to die anyway. It's science and when it doesn't work well you pour MORE resources into it. Now even the experts are not in strong support of simulated results for deciding huge things or the level specificity they strive for; however, it depends on what kinds of things you are asking. When you bash it as being worthless and something to dismiss you HARM the science and when it gets good enough to help scientists with their work (by their own expert opinion) it also harms anything they say that incorporates it and eventually it harms the working results. Which is easy to do when you can just nit pick the limitations and there always are limitations... It could be 100x more accurate and still be dismissed in the same way-- as if no progress was made-- again, harming science.

      Picking on science reporting-- I'm all for that, they all suck big time. But to bash these expensive projects to advance science because they don't work as well as you (the non expert) like or because they fail is NOT WISE. In fact, failure is more important to science than success is. now you think about that.

      I know people who do or have done research work. If people put the skepticism and cynicism science gets into advertizing, politics, or religion we'd all do better.

  13. Ah Ha USGS Colorado by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like the first impact of legal weed on the "Science" establishment at UC.

    Well, it will be funny watching the dooms day pronouncements of the USGS against those of the "Sea Level" Group.

    Ah. Now that has been a funny to me for years. How is it that a University in the near-middle of a continent has a
    "Sea Level" Group?

    Seems madness just by logic, but perhaps that is a hallmark of University Colorado.

    Tee Hee

  14. Re: 300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guy from Idaho Falls here. Probably the second largest city in the swath. This confirms what we already know: if Yellowstone goes off we are all dead

  15. Game changing big events beyond any planning? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our current economic system has created existential risks by discounting the risks of centralization and just-in-time production and just-barely-works systems without huge margins of resiliency. One tragedy-in-the-making example is the USA recently selling off its emergency strategic grain supplies.
    http://ppjg.me/2010/11/12/usda...
    http://articles.latimes.com/20...

    The USA could as a nation be putting in place a more distributed resilient production system (including indoors food production or even space habitats) to ensure the safety of its citizenry even under huge unexpected disasters. The USA has chosen not too because it does not fit with the current economic dogma that discount such "black swan" existential risks. Hurricane Katrina is an example of failure to systemically plan for obvious serious weather-related risks, Given that example, it is unlikely we can expect the USA to plan for even rarer risks like supervolcanoes, solar flares, pandemics, rogue AI technology, asteroid strikes, economic meltdown, civil war, or whatever else. Still, if you add up all the rare risks, taken together, the probability of some sort of "black swan" event may not otherwise be as rare as one might expect -- and they can all be addressed to some extent by creating a more resilient decentralized infrastructure and promoting more cooperation among people (rather than competition).

    I find that situation frustrating because I find issues about resiliency to be very interesting civil defense problems to think about (e.g. my OSCOMAK idea), but the current notion of national security is focused on intrinsic unilateral military might, not intrinsic mutual resilient security. The "Lifeboat Foundation" and "The Living Universe Foundation" though are examples of some groups that have concerns in this area -- but with little funding and lots of competition for that funding compared with the effectively trillion US dollars a year the USA spends (or effectively incurs) annually for military-oriented defense.

    Like George Orwell said:
    http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/a...
    "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, is possible to carry this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield [or a three foot deep ash field...]"

    A resilient infrastructure coincidentally is also more compatible with "democracy" since there can't be real political democracy without some level of financial and material independence for the citizenry. At least the Maker movement is a bit of hope there. As are the changing economics of indoor agriculture given LED lights and robotics, even without potentially cheaper energy supplies if either hot fusion or LENR/QuantumEnergy/ColdFusion turns out to be workable.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Game changing big events beyond any planning? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Typo: That should have been "*extrinsic* unilateral military might" not "intrinsic unilateral military might". Extrinsic means the security comes by extrinsically having soldiers defending supply lines, not intrinsically having local systems that can produce what you need or that can take a pounding.

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    2. Re:Game changing big events beyond any planning? by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      Our current economic system has created existential risks by discounting the risks of centralization and just-in-time production and just-barely-works systems without huge margins of resiliency. One tragedy-in-the-making example is the USA recently selling off its emergency strategic grain supplies. .......

      Good stuff except that the Yellowstone volcano risk is vastly bigger than any emergency grain supply we ever considered.

      We are not talking about a regional disaster but one so big that with the modern population and population distribution
      we would be well and goodly firetrucked.

      You point is spot on if we consider lesser but still massive disasters. Most folk consider disaster planning of three days
      food and water to be a difficult investment. A continent wide disaster with spill over to other continents needs to address
      decades or more.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    3. Re:Game changing big events beyond any planning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      supervolcanoes, solar flares, pandemics, rogue AI technology, asteroid strikes, economic meltdown, civil war, or whatever else

      The problem with black swans is that some of them may trigger the others in a society where there is little cooperation and solidarity, or the spirit of them.
        Systemic redundancy without bureaucratic redundancy should be made economical and natural way of doing things at the society level as well. I too am very enthusiastic about the idea of industrial scale indoor, or under ground agriculture to increase likelihood of survival. Industrial scale city agriculture in high-rise industrial buildings is already under research.

  16. Ash 3D by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Ash 3D?

    "See this? This... is my BOOM STICK!"

  17. Re: 300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And nothing of value will be lost.

  18. No Map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cant find a map. I would think that a map of some sort would be useful in a story like this.

  19. Computer model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10 PRINT"BOOM!";
    20 GOTO 10

  20. Re: 300 miles. Basically, lots of ash in bumblefuc by Chas · · Score: 1

    Guy from Idaho Falls here. Probably the second largest city in the swath. This confirms what we already know: if Yellowstone goes off we are all dead

    If it goes off BIG, yeah, lots of people are going to die and ash is a VERY distant secondary concern.

    If, however, it just burps a huge ash cloud and suffers a minor eruption, yeah, life in your area is going to suck. Hooverishly.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  21. Re:it's a blueprint by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    No, if Yellowstone is not ready to blow already I doubt the biggest atomic bomb we could make would set it off, almost certainly not one on the surface.

  22. This will end badly for Vanessa Ferguson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and even worse for Pickles

  23. Simulations are science at work. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Simulations are loosely similar to doing unit testing in programming.

    The random chaos involved is not purely random; just way way beyond human comprehension. The statistical patterns may exist in the noise to be discovered someday - no, it won't describe the system in any reproducible way but it will increase accuracy for increasingly detailed predictions. Accuracy is inversely related to the level of prediction. We don't know the curve between these two without a great deal of work. Think of breaking encryption, brute force can be impractical but if you apply statistics (finding weakness patterns) you greatly reduce the amount of work guessing (huge understatement, you go from billions of billions to just thousands.)

    I remember the models for my region, all but 1 said we'd get more rain and that 1 said it would be the same. None of them said less rain. We've had more rain as predicted by the simulation (the span was about a decade, it was climate not weather prediction I'm citing here.) Also, if they ran 25 (I think it was just 4) and most were correct - then it was a good simulation. If just 1 matched reality, it is still a good simulation! The problem is when no simulation remotely matches the outcome; then you have a LOT of work to do. Like I said, it's fluid dynamics, the longer it runs and the more detailed the greater the parallel universe of possible outcomes.

    Climate change:
    It's extremely general and obvious ever since they figured out Venus. Then it was figuring out how much heat... and after that the complex predictions so we know how much is too much. That is done too. What we are doing now is trying to get even more detail for some reason; which probably has to do more with money and political long term planning at this point. So we have ignorant people dismissing the solved problems while citing the extraneous work as it approaches the limits of understanding. Bringing up weather prediction is even more extreme in the ignorance.

    You know this stuff wouldn't be controversial if we lived on the moon... planetary and climate science wouldn't apply to us and upset certain people.

  24. story by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    Anyone interested in a halfway decently written adventure story built on the basis of the Whole Yella blowing might look into the Ashfall trilogy:
    http://www.amazon.com/Ashfall-...

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  25. I just hope.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just hope that at least Russia has collapsed before the Yellowstone volcano destroys the USA. Then China will take us forward :)

  26. 9-11 ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote republican, because 9- 11! Glenn Beck!

  27. 1 foot ash == 10 feet snow by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    Optimistically, here in Denver three feet of ash on the roof would be like 30 feet of snow.

  28. 300 Miles context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three hundred miles is the projected distance at which cities would be covered with three feet of ash. The ash coverage would extend much, much farther than that and the atmospheric ash would have consequences much more far-reaching. So don't get locked into the idea that if you're beyond that 300-mile radius, you have nothing to worry about.