h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've decided to start this stream related to the stream 'Future Natural Disasters', which is supposed to largely cover about the next 150 years, in order to discuss what may be done about the threat of the Yellowstone Caldera's eruption coming rather soon, but not so soon that we might as well do nothing but leave a good memoir. I've presumed in that thread that it is so far away that we can actually do good long-term planning and not even really start doing so any time soon. The question I ask here is to look at the possibility of warning, say, ten years in advance (right now or in the future). It's possible that we could do dramatic things with urgency, on first thought, but I want all opinions. Assume we can't stop an ice age. Can we prevent a large fraction of humanity from dying. Even I am not optimistic about this, but I'd like it tossed around in people's heads a bit.

Here is a link to an article: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/08/yellowstone/achenbach-text

Glue it down. That'll stop it. No Nails!

I presume what you say then is that this is too dark a subject for anything but jokes. Perhaps! What of a clear warning a whole ten years in advance, though. Could we quickly set up food rationing and storage and a household sharing scheme for energy conservation, or do you think we'd just all go bonkers whether we discuss it now or not?

Sorry, but I keep forgetting question marks.

I presume that if there is a major erupiton similar to the last one, the entire of the United States will be wiped off the map, but that the rest of the world might survive - that is, life in the rest of the world will surive but the human race might or might not.

But there could easily be smaller eruptions with less catastrophic effects - shouldn't we be monitoring for them?

Are you sure about that Gnomon?

I thought once a Caldera lets go, it goes all the way, as it's not tectonic heating causing the eruption, it's a burnthrough from the outer core (inner mantle?).

And yes, we probably sould be monitoring them, in much the same way as we've learned to try to monitor for Earthquakes. Any warning of an event capable of species extinction can only be a good thing.

Gnomon: Hello.

We are monitoring geological activity generally, you of course know. I'm a little unclear. I think you're suggesting that we should do a really heavy load of monitoring and not the relatively modest amount we do now. I would agree with that and put probably 0.2% of global GDP (off the top of my head) into it.

The intention here by me, of course, is a thread about the possibility of having warning from better and better geological data, but only about ten years. We discussed this topic in the other thread I created. Perhaps you want to read over that discussion and comment on something. I kind of indicated that we should move along to one of the other future natural disasters we might have good reason to expect, but you can just butt in and keep the topic where it is. This is the dedicated Yellowstone thread, in short, while the other is all future disasters, not even necessarily non-anthropogenic.

What thatprat said is a good introductory sentence on the distinction between the two kinds of volcano, I would say.

I'd have to check on the question though, and I'm not sure to what extent the answer is known.

Does it really matter? We'll still descend into chaos with looting, killing, threatening, raping...

We're such wonderful creatures.

prevent a large amount of people from dying?
'can we' probably.
'will we' probably not.

Of course, it depends on the size of the eruption. Assuming it is at the worst like the one 2.1mya, then:
outside of the immediate effect and deaths from that, the main issue is going to be the volcanic winter and that effect is going to be global. Starvation and farming failure, along with dropping temperatures would cause massive drains on the infrastructure for heating and production. As ever, the poor and unhealthy will be hit hardest and quickest. But millions, perhaps billions depending on scale, would die. Most that could be done would be to cope as best we could. Put on your best post-appocalyptic biker wear and start re-enacting Mad Max but with ice instead of sand.

And it isn't just a quick thing either, the winter could last for a decade or even more and, as a global society, we simply don;t have the resources to deal with that. Population would shrink to meet the available resources.

Problem is, we won't get any real warning of it, we just don;t know the cycles involved. I mean the doming has increased a lot since 2004 - nice scary plot for this:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2007/upsanddowns.php

The caldera eruption of Santorini has happened at least three times. Each time the caldera gets bigger. But there have been other eruptions as well, causing a new volcano to form in the middle of the caldera.

But Santorini is a tectonic caldera. Yellowstone isn't: it is, as thatprat says, a burnthrough from the mantle.

Yellowstone has only ever erupted catastrophically. In that respect, it might well be unique. Even the Toba caldera, which has come closest to wiping out humanity, has more conventional eruptions from time to time.

I do know that the recent Chinese earthquake told us quite a bit about what's going on inside the Earth that we did not know, though I can't be specific.

I think I agree with Robyn on what would happen if the warning was like I described and now, but since we won't have that kind of warning, we could try to envision ourselves as having fifty years warning now with an imagination of a ten-year warning in forty years. I'd like to see how that possibility plays out in people's heads if they can manage it. I think the world is becoming more peaceful, from my American perspective on how the races interact and from other things. If we don't assume I'm right and Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations continue badly, things will be as Robyn said. So, let's assume I'm right. Otherwise we have nothing to debate, and warning will lead to chaos.

Massive floods of one state/city = looting rape and murder even after help was coming in.

I cant see that any amount of warning makes any difference. A few people managing to keep themselves safe for a while doesn't affect the overall state of affairs.

Laying in stores? Planning ahead? 50 years you say? Give or take what, 20 years? so even if we say we need to be ready in and for thirty years' time... That's how many changes of government in the Us and the UK alone? That's how many cycles of war and peace?

The world's becoming a more peaceful place? Really?

Sorry to be fatalistic but I'm not convinced that any amount of pre-warning will make the slightest bit of *real* difference for the majority of the survivors. Speculation on post apocalyptic societies, how people cope with it all are out there, we're all pretty familiar with them... The only ones I'd disagree with are the ones involving any form of utopia...

Your first sentence is about a city that already had a notorious-for-America crime problem, and it didn't that much worse. You are welcome to not do as I asked and to not assume I'm right. It is your right, but I suggest that the attitude that we can't do anything is part of the potential problem.

God you're a tetchy character, aren't you?

You asked people for their opinions on whether we can prevent people from dying. Robyn gave the opinion that we can't, and you criticise her for disagreeing with you.

I'll concede that I'm tetchy. Let's have some slower thought. Things really have become generally more peaceful, but with still plenty of exceptions. You have a Europe that is not at any great risk of self-immolation, for instance. Everybody is trending a little bit toward too much interdependence to be able to afford burning their bridges. That's what globalization is all about. I expect things to get better, and if we don't assume that with me, things will be as Robyn said and the part of this stream related to the period of fifty years out is just meaningless chit-chat. These are my last words on things that don't have to do with positive action under favorable assumptions. People who want to either just talk about the science can educate and be educated, and people who want to say there is no point talking about it can do that too.

HI - "Yellowstone has only ever erupted catastrophically."
In its own terms that isn't true - it's had 3 major ones and even then, in volume, the largest exceeded the smallest by a factor of 10. The biggest being the one 2.1mya. Plus lots of littler ones inbetween - including the possibility of ones that have been erased by later activity so we don;t know about them.

Hmm, 50yrs warning. By then global warning is thought to be predicting a global temp rise of 5 degrees. But then again a moderate supervolcano from Yellowstone (another one like 2.1mya ago thought unlikely as crust is thicker where it is now) would predict a drop in temp of about the same. So providing we can evacuate north america in time (and leave it for a bit to cool down) then could work out quite well.