It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eruption at Yellowstone: Mitigating the Effects

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
This OP is a pure "blue sky" notion that I have never heard before and I am throwing it out for discussion or comments from people who probably know more about this sort of thing than I do, but I had never heard the idea before and I wanted to give it some exposure to the public, in case at some point down the road a new idea becomes a new necessity.

Here in Toronto it has been unseasonably cold. Our group usually has a picnic every year around now and I remember from last year that it was much warmer and the grass on our lawn was much more luxuriant than it is at the moment. The cooler spring is certainly not harsh by Canadian standards but this morning I was thinking how terrible it would be if there were a world wide volcanic event of the sort that the Yellowstone caldera could generate. In fact, this year we are probably feeling the effects of volcanic eruptions around the world over the past year or so.

If the Yellowstone caldera were to blow, or any of the other calderas around the world, the effect would be catastrophic as ATSrs know, because of the vast quantities of particulate matter that would be sent into the atmosphere. We would enter a period of continuous winter for perhaps a period of several years. The effect on food production would be devastating, not to mention untold disturbances to all aspects of life as we have known it, and large losses of life.

I was wondering if it would be possible to hasten the elimination of airborne particulates that would follow such an eruption by pumping quantities of sea water into active volcanos around the world in order to send large quantities of steam into the atmosphere. Undoubtedly this would increase precipitation and possibly be significant enough to clean the dust out of the air. It might also have the effect of warming the atmosphere during the period of volcanically induced winter.

Volcanos are the only sources of heat that could possibly boil the amounts of water needed to do this job. Is this idea something that the United Nations should be studying? It would require international cooperation since many of the usable volcanos are found in different parts of the world and not all governments would be able to fund the studies and equipment installations that would be needed to tailor the application for each volcano.

As I said, this is purely a "blue sky" idea, but I can't think of anything else that could be brought to bear on the aftermath of a caldera eruption.
edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

There should be enough planes equipped with chemtrail-vaporizers to pump out aerosols to confine the dirtparticles in the air..


No, seriously, you would not only need planes capable of flying in/over dustclouds from the Yellowstone vulcano (think about it: the dirt is similar to powdered concrete such that most victims would suffocate from blocked lungvessels.. Same goes to combustion engines. Maybe some electric propelled planes, powered by batteries?).

Then you would need tons, kilotons, megatons or even gigatons of aerosols to bind enough dirtparticles. That is a lot.

Pumping water into vulcanoes might go bad: the thermodynamic shock influenced by the major thermal differences between seawater and hot lava might cause the crust of the lavadome to burst open - new active vulcanoe.
And then you would need gigatons of water, too. Pumping needs electricity, which has to be produced - more dust by coal-fuled powerplants.

Overall: Yellowstone-eruption = really bad news, worldwide!



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
you cant "mitigate" yellowstone. lol... period.

Like... you cant "mitigate" a .45 point blank shot to the face. Or a fart after cheetos and mcdonalds. You just cant. Its impossible.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope
You make some good points. I think a Yellowstone style eruption might well ground all air traffic worldwide at some point during its aftermath, perhaps not right away.

Studies would be needed on the volcanoes to determine how much water should be pumped into them, the rate of flow needed in order to generate continuous steam without choking the volcano leading to unpredictable results. Many of these volcanoes are near the ocean and I am thinking that nuclear powered ships with water pumps aboard would be used to pump the sea water.

Ideally, one would want to begin pumping as soon as possible, perhaps even before full volcanic winter sets in. The effects of this would have to be studied in detail in advance to avoid making a bad situation worse.


edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: FraternitasSaturni
you cant "mitigate" yellowstone. lol... period.

Like... you cant "mitigate" a .45 point blank shot to the face. Or a fart after cheetos and mcdonalds. You just cant. Its impossible.


It depends on the era you are living in. I agree, in our time it is impossible, but this idea is an attempt to mitigate, down the road. Heavier than air flight was thought to be impossible also, at one time. I think this idea should be studied now, before we are faced with the event.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit

originally posted by: FraternitasSaturni
you cant "mitigate" yellowstone. lol... period.

Like... you cant "mitigate" a .45 point blank shot to the face. Or a fart after cheetos and mcdonalds. You just cant. Its impossible.


It depends on the era you are living in. I agree, in our time it is impossible, but this idea is an attempt to mitigate, down the road. Heavier than air flight was thought to be impossible also, at one time. I think this idea should be studied now, before we are faced with the event.


Ah sorry. Wait... I thought you were talking about "today"...

If were talking about future tech, well I'm sure theres a lot of it to theoretically contain it, or to survive it or even to suppress it all completely...

I was talking about today's tech and suitability in the affected area tho... sorry then.
my bad



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Mitigating the effects?

Be a billion air with a Bunker built out side the north American Continent with a few hundred years of stored food



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Imagining for a moment the logistics for pumping water into volcanoes to somehow blow steam into the atmosphere and bind with some mega eruption pollution is well,

wait… what?



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

The trouble with dumping seawater into a volcano, is that the sudden impact of cool water and hot lava, would probably cause a very loud bang, and destabilise whatever mechanism was keeping the bulk of the eruption from taking place. Furthermore, to counter the particulate problem, one would need much more water than could reasonably be piped, shipped, or flown in.

The only way to mitigate the effect of something like a caldera detonating and spewing god knows how many metric butt tonnes of particulates into the air, is to prepare agricultural systems which counteract the meteorological changes that could come about as the result of the dirtying of our atmosphere. Hydroponic systems would be a very important factor in any preparation plan for this, but it is something that will need to be taken up en masse, if the human race is to survive the possible chaos ahead.

It will do mankind as a species no good for one or two people to take it up in a small way, for their own needs. No, hydroponic crop production methods will HAVE to be industrialised in order to prevent food crisis worldwide. Such an event will change the dynamic of the species, but it will also be a time to apply what we have learned since the last such event, to match our wit to an ancient problem.

It may be hubris to believe as I do, but it is my estimation that for the first time in history, mankind as a species could actually survive such an event with some aplomb, when compared to the helplessness with which it has had to respond to such events before. The only thing that will prevent our species from coming through this oncoming event, is its pettiness. If we can lay that aside, we have all the tools required to conquer the dangers posed by particulate induced global cooling.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I'd assume that the biggest problem will be guessing how big the explosion will be and the shear amount of water required to be moved per hour would be mammoth and while the US may have the nuke power to shift that much water can it be done to lets say shift 5-10 million gallons of water per hour for lets say 6 months without causing lord knows what other sorts of problems



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ipsedixit

The trouble with dumping seawater into a volcano, is that the sudden impact of cool water and hot lava, would probably cause a very loud bang, and destabilize whatever mechanism was keeping the bulk of the eruption from taking place.


I think studies are need. Rather than a loud bang, I'm thinking of a continuous sizzle, sending steam into the atmosphere from as many vocanoes as possible, around the world. I think the feasiblilty of this should be studied. I don't think the idea should be rejected out of hand, although it is certainly a big idea. If science can spray chemtrails into the atmosphere with abandon and fool around with HAARP and other antenna arrays connecting to the ionosphere, they should at least look into this idea. Nothing clears the air like a rainy day. Everything a caldera puts into the air comes down eventually. It would be nice to be able to hasten the process.


Furthermore, to counter the particulate problem, one would need much more water than could reasonably be piped, shipped, or flown in.


I think that would need to be studied.

By the way, I agree with most of your other remarks, particularly the following:


It may be hubris to believe as I do, but it is my estimation that for the first time in history, mankind as a species could actually survive such an event with some aplomb, when compared to the helplessness with which it has had to respond to such events before. The only thing that will prevent our species from coming through this oncoming event, is its pettiness. If we can lay that aside, we have all the tools required to conquer the dangers posed by particulate induced global cooling.

edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maxatoria
I'd assume that the biggest problem will be guessing how big the explosion will be


There have been studies of past caldera eruptions based on ash deposits worldwide. They give some idea of the magnitude and duration of the problem.


and the shear amount of water required to be moved per hour would be mammoth and while the US may have the nuke power to shift that much water can it be done to lets say shift 5-10 million gallons of water per hour for lets say 6 months without causing lord knows what other sorts of problems


There is no doubt that a lot of water would need to be boiled, but that is also something that would have to be studied. Even if this plan could not eliminate the particulate problem quickly, if it did anything significant to lessen the problem, it would be very helpful.
edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I think the particles blocking the sunlight would be at an altitude greater than your steam is ever going to get to. That steam of yours would condense at a very low altitude and return to Mother Earth without doing a single thing to the volcanic particles.

P

edit on 19/5/2014 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: FraternitasSaturni
you cant "mitigate" yellowstone. lol... period.

Like... you cant "mitigate" a .45 point blank shot to the face. Or a fart after cheetos and mcdonalds. You just cant. Its impossible.


I chuckled directly after the dry heave you gave me with this... ^^^^^^

Not the breakfast visions of champions.

edit on 5/19/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

I think that although it is fair to point out that various bits of tinkering are already happening to our weather systems, if you think about the combined effect of HAARP, man made gases being released, agriculture, and so on and so forth however, the risks involved with prodding at the heart of the thermodynamics which operate inside a volcano are significantly larger than those presented even by HAARP.

Remember, the Yellowstone caldera does not just pose a risk to the atmosphere, but will, if various reports on its size and potential are to be believed, explode with the power of several thermonuclear devices, under the right circumstances. We do not know enough about the internal workings of this particular caldera, nor any particular caldera for that matter, to try to alter its characteristics via cool water, without risking making things worse, or making something which might not happen for another decade or three (giving us time to make better preparations), happen much faster than it might otherwise have done.

I would agree that further research is needed into such matters, but from what I understand of the situation at the moment, we certainly do not know enough to even suggest a root level mitigation for the explosive potential involved, let alone go tinkering with the thing to save the atmosphere.

Again, with many of the natural risks associated with living on the Earth, we are at a point where we could measure ourselves against these challenges, and overcome them, without necessarily trying to play God, and stop events unfolding. What we need to do is concentrate on how to improve survival probability by putting in place infrastructural improvements to everything from agriculture to emergency preparedness.

I personally believe that there is no way to prevent the explosion of that caldera, the only thing that we can do is prevent it, or speed it up. I am of the opinion that we must accept that these things, hurricanes, tornados, volcano eruptions, and a whole host of other things. They will happen. Our cause must be therefore, to improve our responses to them after the fact, our ability to adapt at speed to changing circumstance, rather than try to desperately cling to a manner of living that is unsustainable in the face of vast natural disasters and events.
edit on 19-5-2014 by TrueBrit because: Spelling and grammar improvements have been applied.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358
This is something that could be studied but I don't think so. Eventually the particulates from any eruption do get back down to earth no matter how high into the atmosphere they go. What brings them down into the weather systems, if they ever get beyond them, I don't know.

I think that increased moisture in the air would have a significant effect on rainfall. Obviously I can't defend the idea scientifically but I do think it might bear fruit. It would have to be studied in my opinion and absent other better ideas, it should be studied.


edit on 19-5-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ipsedixit

Remember, the Yellowstone caldera does not just pose a risk to the atmosphere, but will, if various reports on its size and potential are to be believed, explode with the power of several thermonuclear devices, under the right circumstances. We do not know enough about the internal workings of this particular caldera, nor any particular caldera for that matter, to try to alter its characteristics via cool water, without risking making things worse, or making something which might not happen for another decade or three (giving us time to make better preparations), happen much faster than it might otherwise have done.

I would agree that further research is needed into such matters, but from what I understand of the situation at the moment, we certainly do not know enough to even suggest a root level mitigation for the explosive potential involved, let alone go tinkering with the thing to save the atmosphere.


I'm not suggesting that at all. I think you've misunderstood me. I'm talking about pumping water into many different volcanoes around the world to create the equivalent of numerous kettles sending water vapour into the atmosphere.

If the Yellowstone caldera goes, there won't be anything but rescue operations going on in the neighboring states for some time. Nothing of what I am suggesting would be done at the site of the caldera.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Bore a shaft in from the Pacific and flood the calders when she blows....



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join