Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I remember when Mount St. Helen blew... within a couple of days, ash was falling on the Chicago metropolitan area... a bit of a mess, until it rained good-and-proper.
I like that I live in North America if this volcano goes off at full force. Most ofthe country will be dead immediately. The rest of the world will starve because the ash cloud will render farming impossible for at least 2 or 3 years.
An 'A bomb' isn't even close. It could change the entire world's climate and cover two thirds of the US in ash.
There are already a lot of ashes in Washington, D.C., and the volcano hasn't even erupted!
An 'A bomb' isn't even close. It could change the entire world's climate and cover two thirds of the US in ash.
There are already a lot of ashes in Washington, D.C., and the volcano hasn't even erupted!
I think the A-bomb was a valid analogy.....at least with volcanic explosions you don't get mega-radiated.....Ash doesn't have a half-life of a hundred years.....it's the secondary damage that's pretty much the same...large areas of uninhabitable land littered with folks who starved or died of thirst or lack of medical attention.
Fortunately you have a geologist right here (yours truly) who can tell you that there is no danger from this volcano for the foreseeable future, and in fact, if any eruption were to occur in the near future, it would likely be small (smaller than or equal to Mt. St. Helens). And at any rate, these super volcanic eruptions, from everything I've read and seen, tend to give plenty of warning, so no one should be worried that we won't have the opportunity to kiss our own arses goodbye. lol
That said, there is at least one other supervolcano that we should be far more concerned about with regard to its potential to be utterly devastation. That volcano is Taupo Volcano, in New Zealand. It is younger, and has had much more recent supervolcanic eruptions than Yellowstone. Granted, it is way down south, on a large but remote Island, but its devastation would nonetheless have global impact.
There are, of course, many others on the planet, and while Yellowstone has the potential to be the most devastating, others demand to be watched carefully.
So while you are contemplating these things, enjoy this light show:
Actually, the one to have the most potential for destruction is the one that no one knows about. It is my belief, and most volcanologists I know agree, that once there has been a major calderic eruption, the likleyhood of a second major eruption, in the same location, is vanishingly small.
As far as warnings go. There should be ample warning. That much is true. The earthquake activity as the magma body works its way to the surface would be substantial.
To say nothing of the inflation that would occur prior to any eruption. But I have to disagree with you about the likelihood of multiple super eruptions occurring at the same volcano. Most supervolcanoes, including the large igneous provinces, have had multiple super eruptions. The three well known supervolcanoes in the conterminous U.S. (Yellowstone, Valles caldera, and Long Valley) have all had multiple major eruptions. And at least one extinct supervolcano (San Juan volcanic field, which includes La Garita Caldera) has had multiple eruptions, with La Garita Caldera being one of the largest, if not the largest known explosive eruption in Earth's history. Every large igneous province has consisted of many large eruptions over quite a long period of time, usually hundreds of thousands of years. So I would not rule out the possibility of any supervolcano having multiple VEI 8 or larger eruptions. As for Taupo, it has already produced two VEI 8 eruptions, and so the New Zealand government is very concerned about this one, and has their ear to the ground, watching it very carefully.
An 'A bomb' isn't even close. It could change the entire world's climate and cover two thirds of the US in ash.
There are already a lot of ashes in Washington, D.C., and the volcano hasn't even erupted!
I think the A-bomb was a valid analogy.....at least with volcanic explosions you don't get mega-radiated.....Ash doesn't have a half-life of a hundred years.....it's the secondary damage that's pretty much the same...large areas of uninhabitable land littered with folks who starved or died of thirst or lack of medical attention.
On the other hand, the blast from an explosive volcanic eruption can come at you as an avalanche moving at up to 200 mph with a temperature of 700 C.
Fortunately you have a geologist right here (yours truly) who can tell you that there is no danger from this volcano for the foreseeable future, and in fact, if any eruption were to occur in the near future, it would likely be small (smaller than or equal to Mt. St. Helens). And at any rate, these super volcanic eruptions, from everything I've read and seen, tend to give plenty of warning, so no one should be worried that we won't have the opportunity to kiss our own arses goodbye. lol
That said, there is at least one other supervolcano that we should be far more concerned about with regard to its potential to be utterly devastation. That volcano is Taupo Volcano, in New Zealand. It is younger, and has had much more recent supervolcanic eruptions than Yellowstone. Granted, it is way down south, on a large but remote Island, but its devastation would nonetheless have global impact.
There are, of course, many others on the planet, and while Yellowstone has the potential to be the most devastating, others demand to be watched carefully.
So while you are contemplating these things, enjoy this light show:
Actually, the one to have the most potential for destruction is the one that no one knows about. It is my belief, and most volcanologists I know agree, that once there has been a major calderic eruption, the likleyhood of a second major eruption, in the same location, is vanishingly small.
As far as warnings go. There should be ample warning. That much is true. The earthquake activity as the magma body works its way to the surface would be substantial.
To say nothing of the inflation that would occur prior to any eruption. But I have to disagree with you about the likelihood of multiple super eruptions occurring at the same volcano. Most supervolcanoes, including the large igneous provinces, have had multiple super eruptions. The three well known supervolcanoes in the conterminous U.S. (Yellowstone, Valles caldera, and Long Valley) have all had multiple major eruptions. And at least one extinct supervolcano (San Juan volcanic field, which includes La Garita Caldera) has had multiple eruptions, with La Garita Caldera being one of the largest, if not the largest known explosive eruption in Earth's history. Every large igneous province has consisted of many large eruptions over quite a long period of time, usually hundreds of thousands of years. So I would not rule out the possibility of any supervolcano having multiple VEI 8 or larger eruptions. As for Taupo, it has already produced two VEI 8 eruptions, and so the New Zealand government is very concerned about this one, and has their ear to the ground, watching it very carefully.
The term is "regional tumescence" and multiple eruptions yes, but catastrophic ones, no. Long Valley Caldera had it's catastrophic eruption 760,000 years ago, but then all subsequent eruptions over the next 600,000 years were confined to the caldera. They were also different in composition, the primary eruption was composed of cool, high silica rhyolite. The eruptions over the next 100,000 years or so were relatively hotter crystal-free rhyolite. Then, once again the magma reverted to the another crystal rich moat rhyolite over the next 500,000 years. IIRC the eruptions were around 200,000 years apart and were extruded in a clockwise series around the caldera. Pretty interesting lithography around the whole area. I was involved in the Magma Research Project there in 1987-88.
There have been warnings about this for years and years.
Fortunately you have a geologist right here (yours truly) who can tell you that there is no danger from this volcano for the foreseeable future, and in fact, if any eruption were to occur in the near future, it would likely be small (smaller than or equal to Mt. St. Helens). And at any rate, these super volcanic eruptions, from everything I've read and seen, tend to give plenty of warning, so no one should be worried that we won't have the opportunity to kiss our own arses goodbye. lol
That said, there is at least one other supervolcano that we should be far more concerned about with regard to its potential to be utterly devastation. That volcano is Taupo Volcano, in New Zealand. It is younger, and has had much more recent supervolcanic eruptions than Yellowstone. Granted, it is way down south, on a large but remote Island, but its devastation would nonetheless have global impact.
There are, of course, many others on the planet, and while Yellowstone has the potential to be the most devastating, others demand to be watched carefully.
So while you are contemplating these things, enjoy this light show:
Actually, the one to have the most potential for destruction is the one that no one knows about. It is my belief, and most volcanologists I know agree, that once there has been a major calderic eruption, the likleyhood of a second major eruption, in the same location, is vanishingly small.
As far as warnings go. There should be ample warning. That much is true. The earthquake activity as the magma body works its way to the surface would be substantial.
To say nothing of the inflation that would occur prior to any eruption. But I have to disagree with you about the likelihood of multiple super eruptions occurring at the same volcano. Most supervolcanoes, including the large igneous provinces, have had multiple super eruptions. The three well known supervolcanoes in the conterminous U.S. (Yellowstone, Valles caldera, and Long Valley) have all had multiple major eruptions. And at least one extinct supervolcano (San Juan volcanic field, which includes La Garita Caldera) has had multiple eruptions, with La Garita Caldera being one of the largest, if not the largest known explosive eruption in Earth's history. Every large igneous province has consisted of many large eruptions over quite a long period of time, usually hundreds of thousands of years. So I would not rule out the possibility of any supervolcano having multiple VEI 8 or larger eruptions. As for Taupo, it has already produced two VEI 8 eruptions, and so the New Zealand government is very concerned about this one, and has their ear to the ground, watching it very carefully.
The term is "regional tumescence" and multiple eruptions yes, but catastrophic ones, no. Long Valley Caldera had it's catastrophic eruption 760,000 years ago, but then all subsequent eruptions over the next 600,000 years were confined to the caldera. They were also different in composition, the primary eruption was composed of cool, high silica rhyolite. The eruptions over the next 100,000 years or so were relatively hotter crystal-free rhyolite. Then, once again the magma reverted to the another crystal rich moat rhyolite over the next 500,000 years. IIRC the eruptions were around 200,000 years apart and were extruded in a clockwise series around the caldera. Pretty interesting lithography around the whole area. I was involved in the Magma Research Project there in 1987-88.
While it is true that Long Valley has produced only one super eruption (VEI 8), from 2.1 million to 0.8 million years ago, eruptions covered some 1,500 sq mi. of the region in lava. And that can only be described as catastrophic, despite the length of time involved. Those eruptions consisted of the same high silica rhyolite as the catastrophic eruption that occurred 800,000 years ago.
I will also point out that since the tectonic forces that resulted in Long Valley are largely not understood, you cannot rule out another catastrophic eruption occurring there.
Fortunately you have a geologist right here (yours truly) who can tell you that there is no danger from this volcano for the foreseeable future, and in fact, if any eruption were to occur in the near future, it would likely be small (smaller than or equal to Mt. St. Helens). And at any rate, these super volcanic eruptions, from everything I've read and seen, tend to give plenty of warning, so no one should be worried that we won't have the opportunity to kiss our own arses goodbye. lol
That said, there is at least one other supervolcano that we should be far more concerned about with regard to its potential to be utterly devastation. That volcano is Taupo Volcano, in New Zealand. It is younger, and has had much more recent supervolcanic eruptions than Yellowstone. Granted, it is way down south, on a large but remote Island, but its devastation would nonetheless have global impact.
There are, of course, many others on the planet, and while Yellowstone has the potential to be the most devastating, others demand to be watched carefully.
So while you are contemplating these things, enjoy this light show:
Actually, the one to have the most potential for destruction is the one that no one knows about. It is my belief, and most volcanologists I know agree, that once there has been a major calderic eruption, the likleyhood of a second major eruption, in the same location, is vanishingly small.
As far as warnings go. There should be ample warning. That much is true. The earthquake activity as the magma body works its way to the surface would be substantial.
To say nothing of the inflation that would occur prior to any eruption. But I have to disagree with you about the likelihood of multiple super eruptions occurring at the same volcano. Most supervolcanoes, including the large igneous provinces, have had multiple super eruptions. The three well known supervolcanoes in the conterminous U.S. (Yellowstone, Valles caldera, and Long Valley) have all had multiple major eruptions. And at least one extinct supervolcano (San Juan volcanic field, which includes La Garita Caldera) has had multiple eruptions, with La Garita Caldera being one of the largest, if not the largest known explosive eruption in Earth's history. Every large igneous province has consisted of many large eruptions over quite a long period of time, usually hundreds of thousands of years. So I would not rule out the possibility of any supervolcano having multiple VEI 8 or larger eruptions. As for Taupo, it has already produced two VEI 8 eruptions, and so the New Zealand government is very concerned about this one, and has their ear to the ground, watching it very carefully.
The term is "regional tumescence" and multiple eruptions yes, but catastrophic ones, no. Long Valley Caldera had it's catastrophic eruption 760,000 years ago, but then all subsequent eruptions over the next 600,000 years were confined to the caldera. They were also different in composition, the primary eruption was composed of cool, high silica rhyolite. The eruptions over the next 100,000 years or so were relatively hotter crystal-free rhyolite. Then, once again the magma reverted to the another crystal rich moat rhyolite over the next 500,000 years. IIRC the eruptions were around 200,000 years apart and were extruded in a clockwise series around the caldera. Pretty interesting lithography around the whole area. I was involved in the Magma Research Project there in 1987-88.
While it is true that Long Valley has produced only one super eruption (VEI 8), from 2.1 million to 0.8 million years ago, eruptions covered some 1,500 sq mi. of the region in lava. And that can only be described as catastrophic, despite the length of time involved. Those eruptions consisted of the same high silica rhyolite as the catastrophic eruption that occurred 800,000 years ago.
I will also point out that since the tectonic forces that resulted in Long Valley are largely not understood, you cannot rule out another catastrophic eruption occurring there.
Those eruptions occurred over a period of 600,000 years. So yes, it's around 1500 sq miles, but spread over that length of time they are trivial. And actually the morphology is fairly well understood, as is the periodicity. Long Valley is the edge of the Basin and Range geomorphic province so the basalt associated with B&R volcanic activity was able to melt the country rock of the Sierra Nevada mountain range and refined the quartz monzonite into the rhyolite of the eruption. It's a normal progression through the solid solution series of igneous rock.
Actually, the one to have the most potential for destruction is the one that no one knows about. It is my belief, and most volcanologists I know agree, that once there has been a major calderic eruption, the likleyhood of a second major eruption, in the same location, is vanishingly small.
As far as warnings go. There should be ample warning. That much is true. The earthquake activity as the magma body works its way to the surface would be substantial.
To say nothing of the inflation that would occur prior to any eruption. But I have to disagree with you about the likelihood of multiple super eruptions occurring at the same volcano. Most supervolcanoes, including the large igneous provinces, have had multiple super eruptions. The three well known supervolcanoes in the conterminous U.S. (Yellowstone, Valles caldera, and Long Valley) have all had multiple major eruptions. And at least one extinct supervolcano (San Juan volcanic field, which includes La Garita Caldera) has had multiple eruptions, with La Garita Caldera being one of the largest, if not the largest known explosive eruption in Earth's history. Every large igneous province has consisted of many large eruptions over quite a long period of time, usually hundreds of thousands of years. So I would not rule out the possibility of any supervolcano having multiple VEI 8 or larger eruptions. As for Taupo, it has already produced two VEI 8 eruptions, and so the New Zealand government is very concerned about this one, and has their ear to the ground, watching it very carefully.
The term is "regional tumescence" and multiple eruptions yes, but catastrophic ones, no. Long Valley Caldera had it's catastrophic eruption 760,000 years ago, but then all subsequent eruptions over the next 600,000 years were confined to the caldera. They were also different in composition, the primary eruption was composed of cool, high silica rhyolite. The eruptions over the next 100,000 years or so were relatively hotter crystal-free rhyolite. Then, once again the magma reverted to the another crystal rich moat rhyolite over the next 500,000 years. IIRC the eruptions were around 200,000 years apart and were extruded in a clockwise series around the caldera. Pretty interesting lithography around the whole area. I was involved in the Magma Research Project there in 1987-88.
While it is true that Long Valley has produced only one super eruption (VEI 8), from 2.1 million to 0.8 million years ago, eruptions covered some 1,500 sq mi. of the region in lava. And that can only be described as catastrophic, despite the length of time involved. Those eruptions consisted of the same high silica rhyolite as the catastrophic eruption that occurred 800,000 years ago.
I will also point out that since the tectonic forces that resulted in Long Valley are largely not understood, you cannot rule out another catastrophic eruption occurring there.
Those eruptions occurred over a period of 600,000 years. So yes, it's around 1500 sq miles, but spread over that length of time they are trivial. And actually the morphology is fairly well understood, as is the periodicity. Long Valley is the edge of the Basin and Range geomorphic province so the basalt associated with B&R volcanic activity was able to melt the country rock of the Sierra Nevada mountain range and refined the quartz monzonite into the rhyolite of the eruption. It's a normal progression through the solid solution series of igneous rock.
Yes I well understand the petrology of rhyolite. And those eruptions were not trivial though they were spread out over a considerable length of time. They shaped the entire Long Valley-Mono Basin Region leading up to the cataclysmic eruption.
Yeah...that's it........because of global warming
I recall reading about this time time ago.
At the very least, the economic effects on the US will trigger a wold-wide depression.
