Is the world's largest super-volcano set to erupt for the first time in 600,000 years, wiping out t

So...the blockbuster movie "2012" was right?

From what I have read around the internet, the people in the 2/3 of the USA would die from breathing in the sulfuric ash. It would be like glass/ ceramic particles hitting the inside of every living beings lungs. Cars would corrode from the ash getting into the engines, the same with the airplanes. Getting on the roads would be bad for escape because highways would be immpassable with cars running out of gas. Think of past hurricane evacuations. Rooves would collapse from the weight of the ash. The animals would be dying outside from breating in the sulfuric ash. The sky for the rest of us would darken and sunlight couldn't get through to grow gardens.The trees would not grow and clean out the oxygen of Earth. Antartica may be the place to go. An Ice age would probably start, and this may clean the air out from the snow. It would be a cold environment. I thought maybe"The Road" movie was an example of this event or of an Asteroid hitting Earth. The algae food the astronauts eat would be a good food source for catastrophic events. Wasn't this like the manna the Isrealites ate in the dessert?

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Indeed your reading comprehension skills must be lacking because you don't know the difference between COULD and WILL!

This has no bearing on the fact that you contradicted yourself plain and simple. You inferred that the BP spill would cause an earthquake at New Madrid and an eruption at Yellowstone - in your opinion of course - I will grant you that qualification. The facts are there to see.

If you go back and view my quotes you will see I did NOT contradict myself in the slightest. Not that it even matters, but it does go to show someone with no logical arguement will try any tactic in a pathetic attempt to discredit a poster and distract the audience from a good discussion.

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
True science evolves constantly but some scientists stop keeping up with the times after they get their college degree...because they think they know everything.

What was acceptable knowledge 50 years ago may not be acceptable today and vice versa.

And this is in relation to what exactly?

The fossil fuel theory is mostly an american based theory, while the abiotic oil is mostly a russian based theory.

Most americans were not aware of the abiotic oil theory until recently...thats the relation!

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Thanks for links but apparently you don't understand what abiotic oil is if you say "does not necessarily have anything to do with depth and certainly deep oil is not known as abiotic.

You were accusing me of comprehension difficulty? "Does not necessarily" does not mean "does not". Your statement was that deep oil is known as abiotic.

Fine lets just say MOST OF THE TIME, deep oil is not fossil fuel oil...at least according to most russian scientists. Fair enough?

Originally posted by PuterMan
That is not the case. Deep oil is not necessarily abiotic, but it might be. Are you saying that ALL Russian scientists refer to deep oil as abiotic? If you are Russian and this is your experience than you possibly could make that statement. but only with the qualification if Russian i.e. "also known by Russian scientists as abiotic oil due to its depth"

Your statement equates all deep oil to abiotic as referenced by all scientists. Had you said "..from that extremely deep well, which may be a source of abiotic oil..." or as I suggested above then I would have possibly have agreed with you. I am not saying you are wrong by the way, just that you cannot make the statement that all deep oil is abiotic.

Arguing semantics is a waste of time for me! You sound like a state appointed lawyer that is trying to save his client from death row...he said this and I said that....and I even proved you wrong unless you don't understand english very well!

Originally posted by PuterMan
I have a feeling after that last statement that you are flying around on the surface of a subject about which you know and/or understand little. If you maintain that because you read it somewhere then please provide a reference to that to back up your statement as this is a particular area of interest for me.

The lubrication of faults is an interesting subject and at times controversial. Various things can lubricate a fault from powders to melt created by friction during thrust movements. Melt may actually inhibit fault movement, or damp it I should say, but either way it seems that the lubrication is effective during the thrust and not in the static state.

Here is one, but definitely NOT the best one! I have read this countless times in the past but I don't always bookmark pages due to the sheer volume of information available............New Earth News and 2020 vision

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07]
I think you are exaggerating quite a bit. Yes it will kill a lot of people in north america but on other continents the devastation will be significantly less and a lot depends on the wind and atomospeheric conditions prevalent at the time.

Please do not display your complete ignorance. If Yellowstone blew completely it would indeed be wipe-out for Europe and Texas, the two areas referred to. That is no exaggeration and I am additionally not prone to making portents of "doom". I answered the question - possibly with too much brevity - but that does not make the statement untrue.

I suggest that before you make rather pathetic attempts to mitigate the effects of a full eruption you do some proper research into the potential.

Rather harsh words from a computer programmer who barely knows anything about abiotic oil and uses semantical attacks to gain attention. Thanks for the discussion, but unless you have something valuable to add, I will be ignoring your posts from now on...just so you know!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I am old enough not to need attention the way you seem to think I do. Not one single one of your references so far has been from a credible source. You are, as I said, flying around on the surface of a subject about which you know nothing. There are scientific papers out there which suggest the possibility of abiotic oil. You are proposing it as fact whereas currently it is an hypothesis

In language what you call 'semantics' are important as the ability to express ones self correctly is the ability to put over your point.

If you wish to ignore me I have no problem with that. You say it as if you think I would care! Before you finally ignore me take a look at this in case you think, as it appears, that I am against your abiotic oil theories.

www.gasresources.net...

There is a huge amount of unsubstantiated rubbish out there - mostly debunking the theory.

If you have access to Russian scientific papers then post links. I don't mind if they are in Russian.

Why does everyone neglect the sea when these disasters happen?
Would the ash effect underwater life at all?
I live in New York, a port city.
Fish is what I eat.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Not one single one of your references so far has been from a credible source.

That is a very old and tired arguement...anything that does not fit your PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS is "non-credible" aka disinfo. We can argue all day and all night about what is credible and what is not credible.

I posted a few links and gave you a BRIEF rundown of the theory/fact...whatever you want to call it!

Originally posted by PuterMan
In language what you call 'semantics' are important as the ability to express ones self correctly is the ability to put over your point.

Yes semantics are important but when people wish to communicate sincerly even the language barrier is no big deal. I run a tourist opertion in greece and I can tell you people who only speak french or italian HAVE NO PROBLEM understanding me because they TRY to understand.

Conversely a disagreable person, such as yourself, will play "deaf and dumb" to discredit and distract....

Originally posted by PuterMan
If you wish to ignore me I have no problem with that. You say it as if you think I would care! Before you finally ignore me take a look at this in case you think, as it appears, that I am against your abiotic oil theories.

www.gasresources.net...

There is a huge amount of unsubstantiated rubbish out there - mostly debunking the theory.

If you have access to Russian scientific papers then post links. I don't mind if they are in Russian.

And is it a coincidence you focus on "mostly debunking the theory" sources when a lot of english sources explain the abiotic oil theory reasonably well? I think not!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

And is it a coincidence you focus on "mostly debunking the theory" sources when a lot of english sources explain the abiotic oil theory reasonably well? I think not!!!!!!!!!

Well thanks for that comment. This just proves you do not look at anything. That link I gave you - gas resources - is a MAJOR backer of the abiotic theory and the theories on that site are fully supportive of YOUR point of view.

I have not given ONE SINGLE DEBUNKING source. Every single source I have given has been one in support of the theory.

I have several dozen papers on the subject - I will list them here if you wish. All this stupidity stemmed from the fact that I said you cannot call ALL deep oil abiotic as the theory is not proven fully yet. Not one single time have I said the theory is nonsense.

Do me a favour. In future please try and read what is written and what links are given.

Edit:

I posted a few links and gave you a BRIEF rundown of the theory/fact...whatever you want to call it!

By the way, you need not have bothered. As I said in an earlier post I have been suggesting this theory on ATS and I was already very aware of the details - and from better sources than the shoddy non-scientific ones you produced. But of course you would not have bothered to read that I said that.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Secularist
Can we stop making 3452135253213525 threads about Yellowstone a day? Getting annoying, especially when they all mention the same thing - that its overdue for an eruption and its going to erupt. We know this already. Post a thread when something new develops. Thanks.

What's even more annoying are people such as yourself who come on these threads just to say they're annoying.

edit on 25-1-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)

Well, it just gives me 3452135253213525 different opportunities to come on here and say that THERE WILL BE NO YELLOWSTONE DISASTER. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. EVER!!

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Secularist
Can we stop making 3452135253213525 threads about Yellowstone a day? Getting annoying, especially when they all mention the same thing - that its overdue for an eruption and its going to erupt. We know this already. Post a thread when something new develops. Thanks.

What's even more annoying are people such as yourself who come on these threads just to say they're annoying.

edit on 25-1-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)

Well, it just gives me 3452135253213525 different opportunities to come on here and say that THERE WILL BE NO YELLOWSTONE DISASTER. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. EVER!!

A little happy denial?
Ever think of running for president? They say ridiculous statements too!

It seems that Yellowstone is indeed unstable, and is undergoing changes :
news.nationalgeographic.com...

There is also the danger of a volcano in Iceland as well
www.telegraph.co.uk...
and we all know what that did to the aviation world for a week or so.

These disasters are just a matter of time, not if but when. Eruptions are a fact of nature, but scientists are just better now at monitoring tem and hopefully predicting approximately the time of the disaster.

Originally posted by 1984hasarrived
It seems that Yellowstone is indeed unstable, and is undergoing changes :
news.nationalgeographic.com...

That same article was posted earlier in this thread, specifically to point to the LACK of concern that those who study it have:

But beginning in 2004, scientists saw the ground above the caldera rise upward at rates as high as 2.8 inches (7 centimeters) a year. The rate slowed between 2007 and 2010 to a centimeter a year or less.

So, it went up about three inches a year in 2004, 2005 and 2006, but less than a centimeter a year in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 -- making the doom and gloom aspect about five years too late.

"At the beginning we were concerned it could be leading up to an eruption," said Smith, who co-authored a paper on the surge published in the December 3, 2010, edition of Geophysical Research Letters.

"But once we saw [the magma] was at a depth of ten kilometers, we weren't so concerned. If it had been at depths of two or three kilometers [one or two miles], we'd have been a lot more concerned."

Nothing imminent to worry about.