Threat of Yellowstone Volcano Eruption Increases to ‘High,’ Says USGS

a reply to: SituationNAFU

Nah ha, that is not probable for the plan we have identified here. Volcanoes will eventually.. ohk think of this.. the earth is slowly dlowing down which is why leap years & seconds happen so earth slowly loses gravity as it slows down. As earth loses gravity it lets water float up more upon other appropriations like pangea continents splitting & getting more water than land. Now the lava will rise because of lesser earth space rotation & gravity/ our chemical redistribution & or war for space in the near future.

It will not actureally happen catastrophically for at least a couple few hundred year, though those day may still prove trivial with our dust clouds of nuclear explultion & electro empathy.

Long Valley has a greater possibility of an eruption before Yellowstone has simply due to the larger melt ratio for Long Valley.

Yellowstone:

Our estimates suggest that the Yellowstone crustal magma reservoir contains partially molten material (5–15 % partial melt) that is considered a working model for the source of the caldera-forming dominantly rhyolitic eruptions of Yellowstone and the bimodal basaltic-rhyolitic volcanism of the Snake River Plain volcanic field.
...
We specifically note that assessments of Yellowstone volcanohazard [Christiansen et al., 2007] will not appreciably change with our new findings because the Yellowstone Late Quaternary volcanic history has been well defined in terms of ages, sizes, and frequency of eruptions that capture the record of the entire large magma body imaged here.

(emphasis mine)

Tomography from 26 years of seismicity revealing that the spatial extent of the Yellowstone crustal magma reservoir extends well beyond the Yellowstone caldera

Long Valley on the other hand:

We estimate the reservoir contains considerable quantities of melt, >1000 km3, at melt fractions as high as ∼27%.

Seismic evidence for significant melt beneath the Long Valley Caldera, California, USA

Estimates place the required melt ratio for a volcano to be around50% or higher in order to really be considered to be close to eruption.

My contribution is just a reminder that all over the world rifts are opening up in the ground. There's a huge one in Africa.

Personally, I think the article is like every other government statement, reductive in nature to prevent panic.

I think Yellowstone is very busy. The USGS tries to downplay the ground deformation, but Steamboat Springs speaks for itself.

Gee, I only have two singles of firewood in stock. Been too busy to get some. Of course there will be a disaster and we will freeze to death.

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: SituationNAFU

If that area starts to Rock n Roll, a bunker is the last place to be.

Mother-Earth can humble even the toughest, and make the most unaware people, wake the heck up fast.

If it blows it full potential, even my bug out area will be screwed sooner or later. Predictions are 7 to 8 inches ash in Dallas imagine what its gonna be like north and west of there. Prevailing winds will carry ash east, this is one of those events where the northern hemisphere is gonna want to be as close to the equator as possible. There are gonna be several brutally cold winters if not an outright little ice age. Make sure you got your long johns

The release of the info has to do with giving attention to lack of siesmometers,for example, located as risk sites.

Another concern is that Glacier Peak has only one seismometer. The earthquake detectors pick up on swarms of tiny earthquakes that can indicate magma is moving toward the surface and lead to an eruption.

Source

The real "doom porn" is the fact that the general public won't be notified in advance when Yellowstone is about to pop it's cork. The government knows all too well that any warning would incite a public panic that couldn't be controlled. The wealthy elite and a few politicians will all be shuttled to their underground luxury bunkers, while utter chaos erupts above ground. Things should get a tad dicey.

a reply to: Realtruth

There is also a chance it could have a slight effect and damage little,but if not there will be lot's of damage across the US,what a crap shoot

From what I understand about Yellowstone, and I say this as a "Layman", at least as far as geology is concerned, if she were to blow, it's pretty much game over.

Right?

Is that at least not the general consensus? Everything that isn't destroyed by the shock wave eventually freezes to death from the ash cloud blocking out the sun.

You know "Nuclear winter", and all that jazz...

So... What difference does it really make?

Hopefully Darwin will do a better job next time.

Hell, I say "Smoke 'em if you got 'em!".

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: SituationNAFU
Yeah you're right, they've just done a revised threat level assessment which is based on the projected threat if a volcano erupts. What baffles me is how they considered Yellow Stone to only be a 'moderate' level threat prior to this assessment, and still only a 'high' level threat now - considering they have a 'very high' threat level. I would have thought Yellow Stone would top the list.

I was just thinking the same thing. I was thinking just the two facts; that Yellowstone is active, and that Yellowstone is a super volcano, should give Yellowstone a very high threat level.

Super Volcanoes very rarely actually have super volcanic eruptions. Most activity is much smaller scale. And of your super volcanoes, Long Valley shows far more indications of a larger scale eruption (even then not necessarily a super eruption).

In short, this list makes perfect sense as it simply reflects the threat posed by volcanoes to the US populace / infrastructure.

In reality, Mount Rainier is far more threatening than Yellowstone in terms of death and damage UNLESS Yellowstone goes all super eruptive.

originally posted by: MteWamp
From what I understand about Yellowstone, and I say this as a "Layman", at least as far as geology is concerned, if she were to blow, it's pretty much game over.

Not necessarily. Look at Mount Tambora in 1815 - a VEI level of 7. In fact, the only confirmed VEI level 7 since Lake Taupo roughly 180 AD. Super Eruptions are VEI 8 but these 2 are the closest we have to that in all recorded human history.

Looking at Tambora, what happened? Well all vegetation on the island was obliterated. Trees were uprooted and mixed with ash, forming rafts up to 5 km across. Ships encountered these over 2000 miles away. It produced a 4m high tsunami (way smaller than, for example, the Japan earthquake). Roughly 48'000 died on Sumbawa (where Tambora is located) but many of these were also due to disease and starvation, rather than simply from the blast. Bear in mind that Sumbawa is an island - an explosion that large, if you believe your Hollywood style doom porn, would have obliterated everyone on the island - but it didn't.

You've got as much chance of being caught in an eruption of Yellowstone as you have of being killed by a pipe bomb. Oh, wait a minute???

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: SituationNAFU
Yeah you're right, they've just done a revised threat level assessment which is based on the projected threat if a volcano erupts. What baffles me is how they considered Yellow Stone to only be a 'moderate' level threat prior to this assessment, and still only a 'high' level threat now - considering they have a 'very high' threat level. I would have thought Yellow Stone would top the list.

I was just thinking the same thing. I was thinking just the two facts; that Yellowstone is active, and that Yellowstone is a super volcano, should give Yellowstone a very high threat level.

Super Volcanoes very rarely actually have super volcanic eruptions. Most activity is much smaller scale. And of your super volcanoes, Long Valley shows far more indications of a larger scale eruption (even then not necessarily a super eruption).

In short, this list makes perfect sense as it simply reflects the threat posed by volcanoes to the US populace / infrastructure.

In reality, Mount Rainier is far more threatening than Yellowstone in terms of death and damage UNLESS Yellowstone goes all super eruptive.

You could fit Tokyo, the world's biggest city, in Yellowstone's super-volcanic crater. Three super-eruptions at Yellowstone appear to have occurred on a 600,000-700,000 year cycle starting 2.1 million years ago. The most recent took place 640,000 years ago – suggesting Yellowstone is overdue for an eruption.

They say its not likely to happen. About a one and 750k chance. A better chance we get hit by a dooms day asteroid. But to put this into perspective, people consider crossing the road dangerous right? You have about a one and 300 million chance of dying if you cross the road.

Things that make you go hmmm.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: MteWamp
From what I understand about Yellowstone, and I say this as a "Layman", at least as far as geology is concerned, if she were to blow, it's pretty much game over.

Not necessarily. Look at Mount Tambora in 1815 - a VEI level of 7. In fact, the only confirmed VEI level 7 since Lake Taupo roughly 180 AD. Super Eruptions are VEI 8 but these 2 are the closest we have to that in all recorded human history.

Looking at Tambora, what happened? Well all vegetation on the island was obliterated. Trees were uprooted and mixed with ash, forming rafts up to 5 km across. Ships encountered these over 2000 miles away. It produced a 4m high tsunami (way smaller than, for example, the Japan earthquake). Roughly 48'000 died on Sumbawa (where Tambora is located) but many of these were also due to disease and starvation, rather than simply from the blast. Bear in mind that Sumbawa is an island - an explosion that large, if you believe your Hollywood style doom porn, would have obliterated everyone on the island - but it didn't.

Maybe I've watched too much Stargate SG-1.

From what I can gather on Wikipedia, Tambora's caldera was pretty tiny at 30-40 square miles (That was just from a glance at WP's page on Tambora, so I could have read it wrong) compared with the size of the Yellowstone caldera at 1500 square miles or more.

I'm not a geologist, so I'm perfectly willing to have my view changed by someone who understands this stuff better than I do. So take this as a straight-up question, as opposed to some lame attempt to shoot down your post.

A 1500 square mile caldera may not be the deciding factor, but every argument I've seen in 20 years seems to indicate that it wouldn't be survivable.

By anyone.

Is that a slam-dunk, or are there other important variables?

I know the Yellowstone caldera is big. 1500 square miles or so.

originally posted by: SituationNAFU
a reply to: fightzone58

Try surfing on a lava wave in a firenado.

challenge accepted lol

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
The real "doom porn" is the fact that the general public won't be notified in advance when Yellowstone is about to pop it's cork. The government knows all too well that any warning would incite a public panic that couldn't be controlled. The wealthy elite and a few politicians will all be shuttled to their underground luxury bunkers, while utter chaos erupts above ground. Things should get a tad dicey.

watch a documentary about mt st helens. its hard to hide a mountain growing 5 feet a day for a month and a half. we would all know

a reply to: MteWamp

The largest die off in Earth's History was the Permian-Triassic event. We know this was caused by volcanic activity - the Siberian Traps. However, what you may not know is that event lasted at least 1 million years.

Yellowstone, even in a super eruption, would not be an ELE. It simply isn't powerful or large enough, unless it simply carried on erupting (it won't, nowhere near enough magma for that). A super eruption may well cause the USA some serious issues and it would certainly help to lower global temperatures but it wouldn't kill off most life on the planet.

It wouldn't even kill off most life in the Americas (Central and South).

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Again, there are no guarantees on that. Just because it has erupted on a period of (for arguments sake call it) 700'000 years and has had 3 already, that another one is due. It could already be at the end of its' super eruptive cycle. Or it may only be at the beginning - one of the reasons it is so heavily monitored.

In order to get a super eruption, you need a caldera collapse - extremely unlikely (but possible) given the size of the Yellowstone caldera. You also need the magma reserves (currently debatable) and you need the correct magma melt ratio (currently nowhere near).

Like i and others have said, Long Valley is a far bigger threat to the US than Yellowstone. Yellowstone has simply had the Hollywood treatment.

a reply to: Navieko

I am going to guess the recent population boom in South Dakota did it?

a reply to: Realtruth

Id like to know if the USGS have made any threat prediction models, like how the smoke frm one mega eruption could ground planes for weeks at a time like in Iceland a few years back

could agriculture be stopped depending on how much light from the sun the super volcano could block out !

Are there any detailed threat assessments ?

the abstract seems less scar

When erupting, all volcanoes pose a degree of risk to people and infrastructure, however, the risks are not equivalent from one volcano to another because of differences in eruptive style and geographic location. Assessing the relative threats posed by U.S. volcanoes identifies which volcanoes warrant the greatest risk-mitigation efforts by the U.S. Geological Survey and its partners. This update of the volcano threat assessment of Ewert and others (2005) considers new research in order to determine which volcanic systems should be added or removed from the list of potentially active volcanoes, updates the scoring of active volcanoes, and updates the 24-factor hazard and exposure matrix used to create the threat ranking. The threat assessment places volcanoes into five threat categories: very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. Within all five threat categories there are changes in relative rankings of volcanoes, and in a few cases, volcanoes moved between categories owing to changes in our understanding of their hazard, unrest, and exposure factors. Scorings of hazard factors were updated for some volcanoes where new research has identified Holocene eruptive activity or clarified our understanding of Holocene eruptive history and the occurrence of particular hazards such as tephra fall or pyroclastic density currents. The most numerous scoring changes made in the threat matrix since 2005 have been made among the hazard factors, particularly those accounting for observed eruptive activity or unrest. The very low threat category underwent the greatest amount of change, dropping from 32 to 21 volcanoes, owing to better knowledge of the eruptive histories of those volcanoes. The list of 18 very high threat volcanoes determined by Ewert and others (2005) remains the same; 11 of the 18 volcanoes are located in Washington, Oregon, or California, where explosive and often snow- and ice-covered edifices can project hazards long distances to densely populated and highly developed areas. Five of the 18 very high threat volcanoes are in Alaska near important population centers, economic infrastructure, or below busy air traffic corridors. The remaining two very high threat volcanoes are on the Island of Hawaiʻi, where densely populated and highly developed areas now exist on the flanks of highly active volcanoes. The high- and moderate-threat categories are dominated by Alaskan volcanoes. In these categories the generally more active and more explosive volcanoes in Alaska can have a substantial effect on national and international aviation, and large eruptions from any of the moderate- to very-high-threat volcanoes could cause regional or national-scale disasters. This revised threat assessment includes 18 very high threat, 39 high threat, 49 moderate threat, 34 low threat, and 21 very low threat volcanoes. The total of 161 volcanoes is a decrease of 8 from the total reported by Ewert and others (2005).