- #1
Noisy Rhysling
- 999
- 344
..."supervolcano" will cause? Immediate area affected, ash patterns, etc?
From your first link, I remember seeing something like the image below. The ash does reach the East Coast but the units are much smaller than I remembered.jim mcnamara said:Whatever @Borg is remembering differs from this in a lot of ways, I think. Maybe a link would help. Anyway, feet thick on the East Coast? - no. Inches maybe.
Is the world economy not just a dinosaur awaiting extinction.Noisy Rhysling said:And that would damage the world economy in the process.
But where would cats get their toys?Baluncore said:Is the world economy not just a dinosaur awaiting extinction.
Destruction of the world economy might be good for the Earth and for human environmental history.
That sounds insane. Surely pumping in water would cause a hastening of the super volcano by weakening the crust above the caldera due to the explosive expansion of water hitting the magma.DS2C said:Im a state over from Yellowstone. Expecting a slow drawn out death in the event of an erruption.
Have heard speculation that NASA wants to pump it full of water to cool it, but would result it a weakened "shell" as well.
jim mcnamara said:@DS2C - where did you read this? Citations are always helpful.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/rockyplanet/2017/08/31/2250904/ This discover science mag article says 'No'. Please read it, and please provide citations for any counterclaim you would like to make from reasonable sources. Like NASA, for example.
Thanks for understanding.
Im no Geologist but Ill go with that as well.phinds said:That sounds insane. Surely pumping in water would cause a hastening of the super volcano by weakening the crust above the caldera due to the explosive expansion of water hitting the magma.
Noisy Rhysling said:..."supervolcano" will cause? Immediate area affected, ash patterns, etc?
To me that sounds hopelessly conservative, but don't confuse energy with damage. We could happily and harmlessly use 10 000 000 such bomb equivalents for power; what we couldn't handle is what happens if we detonate them, which is what we must avoid with Yellowstone.Cloud Variable said:I did a school project on Yellowstone National Park last year and I remembered finding a credible source saying the total damage would be about 10,000 Hiroshima bombs, but I still find the figure incredibly innacurate and absurd even though the source was credible. I'll give you the link when I can find it.
fresh_42 said:I remind everybody in the thread to do a little research to provide reliable sources for their statements. Otherwise this thread will be closed, as nightmarish stories about the consequences of a major eruption belong into the science fiction forum, but not here. It will be bad. Anything else is speculation.
We all would be keen to see what you could turn up apart from speculation on what might be available outside of science fiction, or what bearing it might have on the questions under discussion, always bearing in mind that SF incidentally has been the basis of a lot of fertile mental stimulation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Innovation) If we were to be limited to what is "finally answerable" and not subject to heated debates as well as current studies, we would be limited to homework questions with answers in the back of the book. Is that what this forum is supposed to be about? How do you expect someone whose knowledge is limited to non-technical pronouncements about N-bombs to phrase questions in terms that meet your strictions?...It should be possible to find data and profound opinions other than "n Hiroshima bombs". Also the long term consequences of drilling for geothermal energy or similar are not finally answerable and subject to other heated debates as well as many current studies. Gas has also been mentioned, but I couldn't see any reference to an analysis of the Yellowstone magma chamber.
No, no, and no. I think you misunderstand both the intent and the value of this forum.Jon Richfield said:If mental stimulation is to be limited to contributions that must be peer-reviewed-publishable, this would be a pretty sterile forum, wouldn't it?
This is a forum for mainstream science, not speculation and if you think it is "sterile" you haven't been around as long as your number of posts suggests, or you haven't been paying attention."Note, we are not called the "idle speculation without understanding or knowledge" forums
Fair enough; attention is not my long suit (ADD and all that).phinds said:No, no, and no. I think you misunderstand both the intent and the value of this forum.
As PAllen once said, This is a forum for mainstream science, not speculation and if you think it is "sterile" you haven't been around as long as your number of posts suggests, or you haven't been paying attention.
"
Not sure what to say there. His post seems totally clear and straightforward to me.Jon Richfield said:Then please explain how the function of the forum maps onto what Fresh said
I don't think either of us said that or meant that. What we ARE saying is that speculation seemingly based on based on just holding your finger to the wind and guessing is not acceptable. Attempting to extrapolate known facts somewhat can be acceptable but requires some care lest you carry the extrapolation too far.What I gather from what you and s/he have said is that one must not ask about anything that cannot be answered categorically,
Don't reverse the burden of proof. This is a common trick used by populists and I do not follow such "invitations" for principle reasons.Jon Richfield said:Please feel welcome to set the example.
fresh_42 said:Don't reverse the burden of proof. This is a common trick used by populists and I do not follow such "invitations" for principle reasons.
An example must do: I have heard (don't remember when, don't remember where, and even less about the reliability), that ashes would fall meter thick as far as Chicago. Well, according to the prognosis in post #4 this is obviously wrong and I did not post it, for exact this reason: far too speculative and potentially wrong. So in order not to spread false information on a scientific webpage, I didn't post this.
Not claiming is a pretty lowly order of virtue, but "closely watched and examined" is a claim, and as claims go, it is no more of a quantitive statement than any of the claims about bombs and ash. In turn, which of my statements about Yellowstone would you challenge as indefensible? If you find any that are not, please say so. They are based on common knowledge in scientific circles. I even pointed out a few sources, right? Unless you happen to have a conspiracy theory about WP?I haven't claimed anything about Yellowstone, except that it is closely watched and examined: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/monitoring_map.html
And before someone finds that official American Institutes as USGS always tell people lies and aren't reliable, because it's "government": We don't debate conspiracy theories either.
Indubitably correct, the upside is all that Barbecued Bison available downwind of Yellowstone.Baluncore said:Is the world economy not just a dinosaur awaiting extinction.
Destruction of the world economy might be good for the Earth and for human environmental history.
Good Stuff! Thanks for posting that. Everyone who has not yet read that link and its links, do yourself a favour!1oldman2 said:Avoiding any dubious citations or links(my list of those continues to grow), I would like to bring up a point from post #25's link. I was surprised to learn that Yellowstone was touchy enough that the Denali quake set off a swarm of hundreds of quakes, that's 2000 miles away. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/yvo/
. Also might add that the SIC writing the farewell letter (J. Lowenstern) wrote some very good articles dealing with the reality vs. hype concerning Yellowstone.
Jon Richfield said:Please be more careful with your accusations of populism and "common tricks". I would hate to have to think of you as a mentor who misuses his/her authority to quash reasoned rejoinders to loose claims. For example where does your divide lie between "obviously wrong" and "potentially wrong"?
And what did you mean by "I didn't post this"? You have just posted it. You apparently regard it as false information when other people post, but you are immune to spreading false information on a scientific webpage? ...... huge snip
A potential eruption of Yellowstone could cause widespread destruction in the surrounding area, including damage to infrastructure, homes, and natural habitats. It could also have global consequences, such as changes in climate and air quality.
Scientists use a variety of methods to estimate the potential damage of a Yellowstone eruption, including studying past eruptions, monitoring the volcano's activity, and creating computer models to simulate potential scenarios.
While scientists can predict the likelihood of a Yellowstone eruption based on current data, there is no specific timeline for when it may occur. It could happen in the near future or thousands of years from now.
A Yellowstone eruption could have significant global consequences, including changes in climate due to the release of large amounts of ash and gases into the atmosphere. It could also impact air travel and cause disruptions to global food supplies.
While it is impossible to fully prepare for a natural disaster like a Yellowstone eruption, scientists and emergency management agencies are constantly monitoring the volcano and developing plans for potential scenarios. It is important for individuals to also have emergency plans in place in case of a disaster.