Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 03/10/2005 View Wed 03/09/2005 View Tue 03/08/2005 View Mon 03/07/2005 View Sun 03/06/2005 View Sat 03/05/2005 View Fri 03/04/2005
1
2005-03-10 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Experts weigh super-volcano risks
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by phil_b 2005-03-10 12:28:40 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Dooom, everywhere you look, Phil. Isn't it terrific?

Well, it wouldn't be the first time, we would survive again. The accompanying breakdown and resulting amnesia sucks, but maybe in 10K years, we would get back to where we are now. It may go faster, or slower, depending on circumstances.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-10 1:28:34 AM||   2005-03-10 1:28:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Sobiesky, I'm not that pessimistic. Basically what would happen is climatic zones would move hundreds of kilometrs closer to the equator and large areas of cool temperate zones would become unsuitable for agriculture - Europe north of the Alps, all of Canada, much of northern China. At the same time large areas that are now hot deserts would become wet temperate - Australia, much of the Sahara and middle east. We would have 12 months to react before billions die. Now do you see the problem. Tranzis would dither until it is too late, but a USA/Australia axis would come through it relatively unscathed and capable of feeding selected allies but only some. Europe could save itself by invading N. Africa but I doubt they would do it in time. The Arabs would seeth as their camels died of wet climate diseases. China would probably invade Borneo and transport millions of rice farmers.
Posted by phil_b 2005-03-10 2:05:06 AM||   2005-03-10 2:05:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Phil, reasonable scenario... It all would depend how nasty it would be. The volcanic activity may be chained (at once in many locations--Pacific Ring of Fire is a good candidate) and trigger also a large water displacements. Last time something on that scale happened was about 12500BCE (not only warming and rapid rise of waters, but quite a few spewers got active in a relatively short span of time).
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-10 3:14:43 AM||   2005-03-10 3:14:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Krakatoa wasn't in this class, but I understand the winter of 1887 was still pretty nasty.

Don't worry too much, DoD has a plan on file.
Posted by Dishman  2005-03-10 4:10:28 AM||   2005-03-10 4:10:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Is there a reason why the magma pressure can't be relieved before a volcano bursts of its own accord? Why couldn't you nuke any area that bulges in a supervolcano zone and lance the boil, so to speak. IIUC, supervolcanoes are usually long-term eruptors and their awakening should be predictable well in advance. What effect would a nuke a year have on a supervolcano? I'm envisioning something that triggers managable lava flow on a regular basis. Is it an impractical idea, am I a crank, and/or is it too risky politically?
Posted by Bulldog  2005-03-10 4:35:19 AM||   2005-03-10 4:35:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Low-yield hits to keep the magma dome from building makes physical sense on the normal macro level... on the supermacro - why not?
Posted by .com 2005-03-10 4:40:17 AM||   2005-03-10 4:40:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Anyone else remember MoHo. A scheme to drill through the earth's crust in the late 60s (I think). It was stopped by the equivalent of radical greens who predicted doom and gloom scenarios. In theory you could stop an eruption by releasing the pressure in a controlled way through drilling, and releasing the magma and/or cooling the hot magma.

I think nuking a volcano would just give you radioactive ash clouds.
Posted by phil_b 2005-03-10 4:49:38 AM||   2005-03-10 4:49:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Drilling and hitting magma under pressure would definitely ruin your whole day -- putting your rig out of business forever, and possibly your crew, as well.

We have explosives, non-nuke, such as bunker busters which sound as though they might perform the trick.
Posted by .com 2005-03-10 4:55:20 AM||   2005-03-10 4:55:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Drilling=pinpricks.

In order to relieve pressure, you would have to know the exact situation in 3d so you can do managed explosion. Else, you may do more harm than good by packing more material in some places than it contained previously. Until there are means to get a 'CAT scan' of the volcano in real time, I'll be inclined to leave it to the natural means.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-10 5:24:39 AM||   2005-03-10 5:24:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Is there a reason why the magma pressure can't be relieved before a volcano bursts of its own accord?

Pressurized gasses dissolved in the magma. Think of what happens when a soda bottle cap is opened. Now imagine what happens with gasses trapped under many thousands of atmospheres. Hint...Kablooie!
Posted by ed 2005-03-10 7:58:33 AM||   2005-03-10 7:58:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm a bit more optimistic, I just can't see the crap hanging in the air that long. Yeah we'd have a really bad winter or two but after that things would clear up and be mostly back to normal.

I don't think it's a coincidence that mass starvation only happens in Dictatorships where food is used as a weapon. Somehow I think the democratic world would get by without all that much loss of life. Might put the diet industry out of business though.
Posted by rjschwarz  2005-03-10 9:47:14 AM|| [http://rjschwarz.com]  2005-03-10 9:47:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 The recommendation comes in a report timed to coincide with a BBC TV drama

It's all marketing.
Posted by 2b 2005-03-10 9:52:56 AM||   2005-03-10 9:52:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 The scientists are watching yellowstone with some alarm. I was there back in '01 and the lake depth was changing due to the magama starting to make a bulge. One side of the lake the water level "dropped" 20 feet due to the rising of the land and the other side swamped under 10 feet. There is a lot of activity under the ground and the worst thing is, scientists have NO idea what it means or what the hell is going on since they have never seen a super-eruption. It could be the hot spot shifting, it could be the beginnings of something bad...
Posted by mmurray821 2005-03-10 10:04:29 AM||   2005-03-10 10:04:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 phil-b

great 1960's sci-fi flick called "Crack in the World" about doing just that ...check it out. Science of it is crap but a fun movie anyway
Posted by Warthog 2005-03-10 11:27:20 AM||   2005-03-10 11:27:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 BTW the MoHo is the Mohorovicic discontinuity, the boundary between the crust and mantle...for you non-geology folks...
Posted by Warthog 2005-03-10 11:31:12 AM||   2005-03-10 11:31:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Maybe it's good Mt. St. Helen's will blow.
Posted by anonymous2u 2005-03-10 11:35:53 AM||   2005-03-10 11:35:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Well, now we know what we'll do w/all that surplus cheese.

What was Bones' line from ST IV?

Drilling holes in his head is not....man!
Posted by anonymous2u 2005-03-10 11:37:36 AM||   2005-03-10 11:37:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 something like "Drilling holes in his head is not the answer man....fundascopic examination is inconclusive in these cases" as I remember
Posted by Warthog 2005-03-10 11:40:35 AM||   2005-03-10 11:40:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 "The plot revolves around a series of violent eruptions at Yellowstone in Wyoming that send thousands of cubic metres of rock, gas and ash spiralling up in cloud that rains down over three-quarters of the United States."

I think that should have been thousands of cubic kilometers. Folks seem to have a hard time comprehending the scale involved.

It is this enormous scale that would make a lancing the boil approach pointless. The crater at Yellowstone covers an area of thousands of square miles! By the time the unimaginably vast reservoir of gas saturated magma is close enough to the surface for even a multi-megaton nuke to release the pressure, it would be far too late to reduce the scale of the eruption.
Posted by Biff Wellington 2005-03-10 11:48:04 AM||   2005-03-10 11:48:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 I can understand you wouldn't want to be too close to the rig on success. The question is whether or not it would be useful to do. (quick calculation) Yellowstone is apparently on the order of 1000 km3 every 600k years, or 190 m3/hour. That's what we'd have to relieve to maintain roughly steady state.

I would be somewhat concerned about the possibility of an avalanche effect, wherein the release dramatically widens the initial hole.

I'd be really concerned about using a nuke on the grounds that it might be indistinguishable from a full eruption.
Posted by Dishman  2005-03-10 11:53:13 AM||   2005-03-10 11:53:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 phil_b: (#2) It depends on how big the eruptions are. Bury the midwest in ash, and you'll put a pretty big crimp in the food supply right away. I'm not so sure we'd be able to feed our own survivors, not to speak of any allies. And timing is a big deal here. Can you rework agriculture in the Amazon for new crops in time for the new growing season?
Posted by James  2005-03-10 12:48:04 PM|| [http://www.idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2005-03-10 12:48:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 The so-called "reality based community" does not see the world as being fundamentally malleable. That's what that comment meant. We shape our own reality, though.

Should we completely accept plate tectonics and vulcanism?

I'm leaning towards trying to inject this question into the Sierra Club. I think I can do it if I try, particularly with the BBC pushing the context. To my mind, it's a loaded question.
Posted by Dishman  2005-03-10 12:48:57 PM||   2005-03-10 12:48:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 If and when call Dick Cheney..he can fix it.
Posted by Angash Elmailet3776 2005-03-10 1:09:12 PM||   2005-03-10 1:09:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Yellowstone Volcano Observatory
In the 1970s, a resurvey of benchmarks discovered the unprecedented uplift of the Yellowstone Caldera of more than 28 inches (72 cm) over five decades. More recently, new and revolutionary satellite-based methods for tracking the Earth's shifting ground motions have enabled University of Utah, U.S. Geological Survey, and other scientists to assemble a more precise and detailed picture of Yellowstone's ground movements. [snip]

The 1975–77 survey showed that the area of recent uplift was located within the Yellowstone Caldera, a shallow, oval depression, 53 miles long and 28 miles across (85 by 45 km), in the middle of the park. This caldera was formed 640,000 years ago during the most recent of Yellowstone's great volcanic eruptions. In that eruption, 240 cubic miles (1,000 km3) of molten rock (magma) was blasted into the atmosphere and scattered on the Earth's surface-more than 1,000 times the volume erupted at Mount St. Helens in 1980! The ground then collapsed into the partly emptied magma reservoir, forming an enormous craterlike depression.

Later eruptions of many large lava flows, some as thick as 400 feet (120 m), buried the original caldera floor and most of the caldera walls. Mount Washburn, a prominent landmark in the park, is a section of the caldera rim that escaped burial. The most recent series of eruptions at Yellowstone, 160,000 to 70,000 years ago, covered much of the caldera floor with more than 20 thick lava flows, including the Elephant Back flow, which can be seen west of Fishing Bridge. [snip]

To learn more about the changing ground levels in the Yellowstone area, scientists conducted additional surveys across the eastern part of the caldera nearly every year from 1983 to 1998. In the 1990s, new and revolutionary satellite-based methods for tracking the Earth's changing ground surface—the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR)—were applied by University of Utah, USGS, and other scientists to assemble a more detailed picture of how and when the ground moves above Yellowstone's magma reservoir.

These new data reveal that Yellowstone is in nearly continuous but frequently changing movement—the floor of the caldera continued to rise until 1984, stopped rising during 1984–85, and then subsided for the next 10 years. Parts of the central caldera began rising again in 1995, but a more complex pattern of uplift and subsidence has prevailed since 2000. InSAR data show that between 1995 and 1997 a large area along the northwest rim of the Yellowstone Caldera, centered near Norris Geyser Basin, started to rise. The picture that emerges from all these data is of a dynamic system in which the caldera floor is in almost constant motion—episodes of uplift and subsidence occur at various locations and over different time scales.

Posted by Chuck Simmins  2005-03-10 2:15:45 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2005-03-10 2:15:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 To paraphrase:
"Run for your lives! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!..."
Posted by mojo  2005-03-10 3:28:30 PM||   2005-03-10 3:28:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Above all else, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!
Posted by eLarson 2005-03-10 4:07:50 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2005-03-10 4:07:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Indeed, mojo, it is just a question how to delay the inevitable and how to make the best of it in between.

As a civilization, may happen. As a species, no. We are very adaptible. Bare some terminal Vogon-type accident tomorrow, we'll spread like a plague throughout the universe.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-10 4:13:10 PM||   2005-03-10 4:13:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Dishman, #22...you've lost me, man.

We shape our own reality, true, but so do other complex systems we interact with. Plate tectonics is a model of reality and must be somewhat imprecise as such as any model we come up with, but it does reflect observations.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-10 4:25:11 PM||   2005-03-10 4:25:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#29  240 cubic miles
let me clarify that

240 Cubic F***ing Miles
Posted by Shipman 2005-03-10 4:55:26 PM||   2005-03-10 4:55:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Sobiesky:
Should we completely accept plate tectonics and vulcanism?

I'm not talking about the models, I'm talking about actual events.

Models are something we use to help understand the events, and as such are judged on their utility. When I say "I am opposed to blatant displays of plate tectonics", I'm not referring to the activities of seismologists, but the San Andreas Fault (among others).

I choose not to accept "que cera cera" when I don't have to. This is a case where I don't think we have to.
Posted by Dishman  2005-03-10 5:14:37 PM||   2005-03-10 5:14:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Biff, thanks I missed that.

James, that was my point, it is only a disaster if you don't change in response to it and food supplies give you about 12 months before large scale starvation in developed countries. Ash per se as long as its not to thick is a nice fertiliser. The main problem is the shifting in climatic zones and the required mass changes in agriculture for just a few years. The more adaptable your society, in general the better you will adapt. Otherwise rerun the scenario with a Kamchatka or Indo volcano and the USA has to respond to global effects rather than local effects from a Yellowstone eruption.
Posted by phil_b 2005-03-10 5:26:31 PM||   2005-03-10 5:26:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Just to put things further into perspective, there are something like seven super-volcano calderas in the United States. The Silverton area is the mineralized remains of a super-volcano from about 35 million years ago. There's another one up in the Middle Park area. Both still have dozens of hot springs, old chimneys, dikes, and other remnants of volcanic activity. IIUC, there's another major caldera in northern California, and one somewhere in Oregon. Don't know about any in Nevada or New Mexico, but that doesn't say they don't exist. The last active volcano in the US before Mt. St. Helens was in New Mexico. A friend of mine, "Rocky" Crandall, a former USGS Vulcanologist, said that Colorado was overdue for a volcanic eruption - about 5000 years overdue! There's a possible rift valley forming in the central US, from about Lawton, OK, up through Duluth, MN. Geology and geomorphology are just so much FUN! Most of the time it runs in slow motion, but as we saw in Indonesia, it doesn't have to. Maybe we need to get the geneticists busy on developing cold-weather and drought-resistant crop modifications, so we can grow crops right up to the glacier walls.
Posted by Old Patriot  2005-03-10 6:36:11 PM|| [http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2005-03-10 6:36:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 OP, Yep GM will be a critical component of the response, and GM scientists and labs will be like gold dust. Of course the Euros don't have any cos they are agin it.
Posted by phil_b 2005-03-10 6:49:51 PM||   2005-03-10 6:49:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 "Civilization exists by geologic consent, subject to change without notice."

Not good enough for me.

GM is another nice arrow in the quivver.
Posted by Dishman  2005-03-10 6:53:40 PM||   2005-03-10 6:53:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Just curious. Does anybody know if all that grain we buried in the Alaskan permafrost in the 50s for a nuke war is still there? If it is, is it still edible? That was suppose to be enough for 5 years of some size of a post nuke war population.
Posted by 3dc 2005-03-10 6:54:13 PM||   2005-03-10 6:54:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 I've got my lawyer on retainer, just in case. An improper warning for a super-volcano is actionable, I'm sure.
Posted by Seafarious  2005-03-10 6:55:30 PM||   2005-03-10 6:55:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Sobiesky, re simultaneous eruptions. Two volcanos in Kamchatka about a 100 Ks apart are currently erupting simultaneously.
Posted by phil_b 2005-03-10 7:01:29 PM||   2005-03-10 7:01:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 OP - Long Valley Caldera - from Crowley Lake past Mammoth Mtn along 395 is a potential site, and experiences quakes and CO emissions all the time...
Posted by Frank G  2005-03-10 7:26:04 PM||   2005-03-10 7:26:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Legislation based on recently-viewed TV shows is always a good idea.
Posted by gromky  2005-03-10 10:19:10 PM||   2005-03-10 10:19:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Frank G - and that Long Valley Caldera would be in the state of ???? (My guess is California) Crater lake in Oregon is a MUCH smaller caldera than we're taling about here, yes?
Posted by Bobby 2005-03-10 10:39:12 PM||   2005-03-10 10:39:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Dishman, sure...San Andreas, it is all his Fault! ;-)

Phil, thanx for notice, Kamchatka may be a miner's canary, but it is not the whole kaboodle I had on mind. Something happened at the end of last glacial what activated a lot of them in a geological fraction of time, from Cascades to Sumatra.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-10 11:13:45 PM||   2005-03-10 11:13:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Now, thinking of it, we are not at the end of a glacial. That is somewhat comforting. Also good's that Mt Olympus is on Mars and not here (that thing in Greece is just a hill).
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-10 11:42:54 PM||   2005-03-10 11:42:54 PM|| Front Page Top

18:55 REAL American
18:53 REAL American
16:43 anonymous
00:01 Uling Glavise2664
23:55 Glereger Clise6229
23:42 Sobiesky
23:41 phil_b
23:36 phil_b
23:33 SteveS
23:13 Sobiesky
23:08 Bobby
23:07 .com
23:04 Anonymoose
22:59 .com
22:56 Emir al-Litella
22:55 Cyber Sarge
22:53 Phil Fraering
22:48 Phil Fraering
22:43 .com
22:39 Bobby
22:33 .com
22:33 Uling Glavise2664
22:31 .com
22:28 .com









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com