Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on November 21, 2009, 09:07:25 am
-
If a supervolcano erupted, such as Yellowstone, would it be the end of the world as we know it, or just a major local disaster?
-
I think you'd need to build up the past eruptive history of a volcano like Yellowstone first, and look for the ash deposits in the stratigraphy - assuming that it's one of those volcanoes with a history of releasing ash (which I think it is). With enough volume and enough eruptive pressure, the ash could be effective in contributing to shutting out a lot of incoming solar radiation. Gauge their maximum extent from the volcano, and maybe their volumes (taking into account any evidence of deposits that could have been eroded away since deposition). I think that would be one step. Then consider the monitoring data - seismic and gaseous, as well as the structural geology of the volcano - these could give pointers as to the stability of the volcano, and the composition of volcanic gases.
If I remember correctly from my studies of the theories of certain past mass extinctions, it's the ash released into the atmosphere that contributes in a big way to global cooling. Although one of my lecturers had a theory that heat released from the eruption of the Siberian Traps around the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction event resulted in global warming, that subsequently set a chain of events in motion (basically a positive feedback effect that heated up the climate; the theory goes that it involved frozen methane gas hydrates in the ocean melting due to the increase in atmospheric, and oceanic, temperatures, followed by degassing of this methane = more global warming) that resulted in 57% of all families and 83% of all genera becoming extinct, i.e. a major loss of biodiversity.
-
Would the net result be global warming or global cooling? Remember when Krakatoa erupted back in the 1880s, it caused "the year with no summer" not "the year with no winter." I missed the first sentence of your second paragraph
Speaking of which, would Krakatoa count as a "supervolcano" or just a really big normal one?
-
Just a big normal one, and not even the largest by far when measuring in volume of erupted material. It just happened to be fairly explosive and happened in recent enough time to be memorized.
Lava domes, cryptodomes, stratovolcanoes and supervolcanoes are the ones you need to be concerned of, though. Shield volcanoes can have fairly large volumes of erupted material, but the consistency of lava typically means that the eruptions are slow and form a shield type mountain rather than exploding stuff all over the place. Largest volcano eruption in fairly recent history would be Mount Tambora erupting in 1815, which was an explosive eruption of a stratovolcano. Estimated erupted material amounted to about 100 cubic kilometres while Krakatau or Krakatoa was of the same type, but only amounted to about eighteen cubic kilometres of material. By contrast, the most recent somewhat comparable Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991 amounted to approximately ten cubic kilometres of matter, while supervolcanic eruptions of Fish Canyon and Yellowstone amounted to somewhere around 5000 and 1000 cubic kilometres in volume, respectively.
Of course, the estimated volume of the original Siberian Traps lava range between one and four million cubic kilometres, but that's basaltic lava, basically the stuff that shield volcanoes are made of, so it wasn't explosively disastrous. The amount volcanic gases took care of that. :nervous:
-
Concerning the potential extent of devastation caused by an eruption, a lot depends on the situation the volcano is in - remoteness from population centres, overlying deposits, likelihood of landslides (which could generate tsunami-sized waves should one of enough size happen next to the coast/in the middle of an ocean), prevailing weather, and other things I can't fully remember.
I think the theory I mentioned also tied in fossil evidence for big forest fires with the eruption of the Siberian Traps, so the warming was a result of heat from the eruption being combined with that from the combustion of vegetation.
Can't recall if the Traps expelled a shedload of ash or not. If they did I guess you'd expect some cooling but that could've been offset shortly afterwards/simultaneously by the heat generated from the volcano and subsequent inferno.
Gah... That lecturer would be disappointed. He was my personal tutor/project supervisor for a while.
-
AFAIK Yellowstone was a level 7 eruption on some official scale that I can't remember anymore. And while there is a level 8 on the chart, we never had such an eruption yet. And yes, it'd be total obliteration thanks to the ash and all the stuff. Probably far-fetched but I dunno.
-
Concerning the potential extent of devastation caused by an eruption, a lot depends on the situation the volcano is in - remoteness from population centres, overlying deposits, likelihood of landslides (which could generate tsunami-sized waves should one of enough size happen next to the coast/in the middle of an ocean), prevailing weather, and other things I can't fully remember.
Ok, lets say if Yellowstone goes up, then what?
-
Ok, lets say if Yellowstone goes up, then what?
shift your investment portfolio away from solar power and towards hydroponics
-
2012 wasn't real. :p
-
I know, and I don't think it would be an extinction level event, but I am curious about the full extent of the damage.
-
If Yellowstone were to erupt in a fashion like Krakatoa I wouldn't think there'd be much of the US, Canada, or Mexico left to worry about and there'd probably be geologic instabilities world wide. Also, I wouldn't expect to see the sun again or for your children to see it either.
-
2012 wasn't real. :p
And it's still 2009. :P
-
If a supervolcano erupted, such as Yellowstone, would it be the end of the world as we know it, or just a major local disaster?
Depends on if your definition of "local" means "the entire North American continent."
-
it would be a major global catastraphy, it would render north america uninhabitable for a generation or two, it would knock civilasation back a few hundred years, but other than that in the long term it would not be the end of the world.
it would probably be the end of the US though.
-
Yes, it would be the greatest environmental disaster modern humans have ever faced. But we would most certainly not be done for. :)
-
it would be a major global catastraphy, it would render north america uninhabitable for a generation or two, it would knock civilasation back a few hundred years, but other than that in the long term it would not be the end of the world.
it would probably be the end of the US though.
I don't think Europe, Asia or Africa will revert back to pre-steam engine levels of infrastructure just because North America is ****ed. It's not like cooling, darkness or probable famines will make production, research and society upkeep impossible.
edit: Kosh, you can probably find many of the answers you are looking for here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano#Notes , read those you can get and look for more.
I just waded through some databases and most of it was either alarmist New Scientist stuff or something highly technical geology. Haven't seen any approximations of practical effects.
-
on the point of the technological effect there would be an impact, send us back to the dark ages? probably not but the pressure on maintaining /advancing science and technology will be great.
the time spans mentioned below are estimations that i have come up with based on our technological ability and bureaucratic red tape
should the ash cloud cover the quarter of the globe containing the North America continent
You will be looking at the loss of major crop growing regions both in USA and Canada we only have a fairly basic understanding of hydroponics with not enough hydroponic infrastructure to take up the slack. Also i believe USA and Canada produce a significant food surplus.
In the immediate area there will be significant human loss of life but the rest of the affected area (ash cloud) will have plenty of opportunity to evacuate the area.
Now we do know enough about hydroponics to make large scale viable but there is more to it than building a warehouse and filling it with water because there is the actual growing of the food, ok some food stuffs don't take long but grains and other dietary cornerstones have something like a nine month development cycle.
fish stocks will also be affected as the ash cloud will alter the thermal pattern in the region altering local sea temperatures causing shifts in sea currents, also runoff from the land and falling ash will change the availability of trace elements in the water and acid/alkaline levels
Summery less global food production without significant drop in global population with a significant start to countering the food problems in the 9-12 month period.
once the ash cloud reaches the jet stream then the ash will start spreading round the world putting greater pressure on the Atlantic and starting to change European climates.
With the loss of the North American continent we also loose significant manufacturing capability including natural resource processing like oil and metals.
so in general there will be greater pressure on the worlds resources which there is strong historical evidence to suggest that wars for resources and general civil unrest will brake out which will force the diversion of research resources towards military goals.
-
I know, and I don't think it would be an extinction level event, but I am curious about the full extent of the damage.
What do you mean by 'extinction' ?
Humans would definitely survive, but there would be countless extinctions as a result.
-
2012 wasn't real. :p
And it's still 2009. :P
:lol:
My niece was talking about 2012 the other day....."It's based on a true story you know?".
The girl should have been born blond! :wakka: