Yellowstone Super Volcano

[Umbral]

There were at least three or four species of Homo at the time, and yes Yellowstone had a role in their evolution/extinction; Homo neanderthalensis arose in this environment.

There is only one species of Homo now. The whole of the human race has less variation than a troop of chimps, and this will make human adaptation to the new environment much harder. IOW a population of 6,000 chimps/hominids has as good a chance of survival as a population of 6,000,000,000 humans today. The first humans to die in a global catastrophe such as this are those in agricultural societies, especially modern ones; coincidentally these are the ones who spread furthest across the earth and have the least genetic diversity.

Even genetic engineering won't help, first because society is destroyed and therefore technology is useless, second because even if we could engineer a human to adapt we would be able to engineer enough of them for a viable population.

Possibly the hardiest humans wrt surviving global catastrophes are the San of the Kalahari.

There are a lot of humans, with little genetic variety, because we are more adaptable than other species without it. This line of resoning only works if every human on earth had the planning, reasoning, and tool using capabilities of a chimp. ASB, to put it mildly.

In the scenario, the USA is gone as a country. No way to survive. Massive waves of refugees flood Mexico and Canada. (Whom I don't think would be doing that well either.)

The rest of the world has a bad spell. Poor weather reduces crop yields. Loss is less severe than the previous volcanic incidents becuse we have a lot more agricultural technology and know-how today. More norhtrnly countries should be able to blunt the effects more, as their agriculture is already more intervention-intensive. But they are also more vulnerable to the effects.

Fishing as a second food source is a great advantage.

Southern hemisphere does better, weather patterns are severely blunted crossing the equator.

Secondary political effects from the power-vacuum generated by the loss of the USA may do a lot more damage than the eruption, long term.

I see something like this over the next years:

-The EU suddenly gets some incentive to pull together. Agricultural surplus is an advantge, and suddenly there are lots of jobs to be done.

-The northern non-EU nations of Norway and Iceland has a good fishing food base, and is used to severe winters. Moderate cursing happens.

-Russia moves south. Emergency turns military and autocratic. Much fighting in Iran-Iraq follows.

-China goes for Taiwan, and anything else it feels like.

-India and Pakistan settle their differences.

-A sore of invasions happen as nations adjust borders and absorb each other with no superpowers watching.

-Australia watches.

 

[Jason]

I found some of the 2004 posts in this thread very worrying, the idea that the USA would nuke other nations because of this!

Possibly a lot of nations follow Icleand's example and start to grow food in giant green houses and similar setups.

 

[stevep]

I found some of the 2004 posts in this thread very worrying, the idea that the USA would nuke other nations because of this!

Possibly a lot of nations follow Icleand's example and start to grow food in giant green houses and similar setups.

a) Would they have time to. If there's no warning we have a few days at most to adjust.

b) You still have the problem of drastic drops in sunlight due to the dust-clouds, along with probably heavy acid rain on anything in the open as the finer dust starts to settle.

Not to mention the flood of panic stricken starving refugees from the urban areas. There is an old saying that no modern city is more than 24 hours from collapse. Those people will want food and shelter and many won't take no for an answer.

Barring a miracle, a very dictatorial state or some chance weather pattern giving a region relative protection what is left of humanity will be scrabbling for survival off the scraps of civilisation. Australia, New Zealand and southern S America might preserve some degree of technology but I doubt if anywhere else will. And this presumes no idiot tries to pull down what's left of human society.

Steve

 

[Wendell]

So, what happens to Alaska and Hawaii?

 

[Jason]

well a) quite right-I suppsoe my concern was the idea behind it 'hey the world's goign to be buggered casue of this volcano goign off, lets make it worse'. not sure what worries me more, that some people on this board think that would be the USA gov's response or that might be the USA gov's response.

b) Again quite right, drastic falls in sunlight but the greenhosue idea would be a move in the right direction.

What I found interesting about the recent mini-series of this idea was that well society survived, clearly there would eb big changes in how life was lived but society and civilisation carried on.

a) Would they have time to. If there's no warning we have a few days at most to adjust.

b) You still have the problem of drastic drops in sunlight due to the dust-clouds, along with probably heavy acid rain on anything in the open as the finer dust starts to settle.

Not to mention the flood of panic stricken starving refugees from the urban areas. There is an old saying that no modern city is more than 24 hours from collapse. Those people will want food and shelter and many won't take no for an answer.

Barring a miracle, a very dictatorial state or some chance weather pattern giving a region relative protection what is left of humanity will be scrabbling for survival off the scraps of civilisation. Australia, New Zealand and southern S America might preserve some degree of technology but I doubt if anywhere else will. And this presumes no idiot tries to pull down what's left of human society.

Steve

 

[shawnee]

Australia Ok, well, maybe; but we all remember what happened with that earthquake that went of awhile back in Alaska. Increased seismic and volcanic action followed. With something like a supervolcano going off, and Australia's proximity to New Zealand (highly volcanic) not to mention Indonesia, I wouldn't bet on it. If/when Yellowstone goes off, and it's been shown to be connected to the Snake river volcanoes, then volcanic activity west will follow. Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Baja and Mexico will have eruptions, too. New Mexico had a supervolcano there, too in the Bandera's field. Long Valley, just north and west of Fresno, Ca. has a caldera supervolcano located there, too. Hawaii; well we all know how volcanic that place is...
I agree we would all have to study the waya the Dutch operate their greenhouse technology. They have their own "silicone valley" tech there. Not acres but miles of greenhouse.Personally, I don't think you could "ride this out" anywhere west of Mississippi. If you're talking 5-10 ft. in plains states, a year isn't just questionable, it's totally unreasonableconcerning crop loss. It isn't the crops loss that will be the problem; it's the LAND loss. This crap don't melt. This is going to happen ; it is overdue and therefore will happen when it pleases. Can't ignore it, hard to imagine it, unbearable but semi-possiible to plan for it. Maybe not in our lifetimes (bet it will be, though) but it will happen.
Personally, this scares me more than nuclear war. That will be widespread - everybody will feel the horror and pain. When this happens it will affect mainly us - and that makes us very, very vulnerable.

 

[Dave Howery]

you're scared? I live in the same damn state as this supervolcano....

 

[The Professor]

you're scared? I live in the same damn state as this supervolcano....

Then I doubt it'd help to know the next eruption is overdue......

 

[stevep]

Australia Ok, well, maybe; but we all remember what happened with that earthquake that went of awhile back in Alaska. Increased seismic and volcanic action followed. With something like a supervolcano going off, and Australia's proximity to New Zealand (highly volcanic) not to mention Indonesia, I wouldn't bet on it. If/when Yellowstone goes off, and it's been shown to be connected to the Snake river volcanoes, then volcanic activity west will follow. Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Baja and Mexico will have eruptions, too. New Mexico had a supervolcano there, too in the Bandera's field. Long Valley, just north and west of Fresno, Ca. has a caldera supervolcano located there, too. Hawaii; well we all know how volcanic that place is...
I agree we would all have to study the waya the Dutch operate their greenhouse technology. They have their own "silicone valley" tech there. Not acres but miles of greenhouse.Personally, I don't think you could "ride this out" anywhere west of Mississippi. If you're talking 5-10 ft. in plains states, a year isn't just questionable, it's totally unreasonableconcerning crop loss. It isn't the crops loss that will be the problem; it's the LAND loss. This crap don't melt. This is going to happen ; it is overdue and therefore will happen when it pleases. Can't ignore it, hard to imagine it, unbearable but semi-possiible to plan for it. Maybe not in our lifetimes (bet it will be, though) but it will happen.
Personally, this scares me more than nuclear war. That will be widespread - everybody will feel the horror and pain. When this happens it will affect mainly us - and that makes us very, very vulnerable.

Shawnee

A couple of points:

a) Not sure if there would be the sort of knock on effect you suggest around the ring of fire. If that did happen say goodbye to most of Asia at an absolute minimum.

b) One other problem with all this dust I don't think anyone else has mentioned yet. A lot of the stuff is very fine. This not only means it will spread quite far and last a while. A documentary on the potential effects I saw a few years ago suggested that a lot of the larger lifeforms were killed by breathing it a lot of it. Basically got into the lungs and cut them to pieces. Very nasty way to go.

Be interesting to know how rapidly N America recovered from previous eruptions. How long does it take for plants and animals to repopulate the region and from where?

As well as the world-wide problems we in Europe don't necessarily escape that easily. There is another super-calderala under the Bay of Naples. If that goes off there wouldn't be much left of Europe or western Asia in terms of human population.

Steve

 

[JLCook]

Unknown NEW Super volcano

Let's locate this monster in the African Rift Valley or somewhere else near the edge of a continental plate/mountainous region, but let's have this one be completely unknown.

If we give humanity 90 days warning, what happens then?

There are active volcanoes in Italy and elsewhere in the Mediteranean. Aetna, Vesuvius, Santorini, Thera, and others. Suppose there is an enormous 200x125km magma chamber under the Adriatic Sea, just barely off the Italian Coast!

what then? Once again, 90 days warning.

 

[Max Sinister]

Maybe if there was a way to "let off some steam", i.e. popping the bubble before it's too late... but I guess civilization had to have better technology for that...

 

[jolo]

I read somewhere that there was a small eruption in Yellowstone 70 000 years ago. That might help avoid another large eruption for a few dozen millenia.

Otherwise, if nothing is done against it (I believe it would be technologically possible to "defuse" the caldera, though it wouldn't be cheap), and it does happen, I'd expect a dust cloud covering the whole planet (even the south), a global winter lasting a few years in north America and a few months in remote areas like Australia (no problem if there was winter already, but a big problem if it happens in southern summer, destroying their harvest, too), and the direct effects around the caldera, killing everyone in a few hundred miles radius within minutes. The ash will fall in really big amounts close to the area, but still a few inches even in most of the most remote areas. The lava, pyroclusters, and so on, will basically cover the whole area already sterilized by the explosion.

That leaves basically the grand catastrophe of only the north not having any food any more, or the whole world missing one and in some areas even several harvests.

In either case, food prices skyrocket, so that only the quick and the rich will be able to buy enough food for the next few years. A few survivalists already have enough stocks, and there'll also be enough grilled meat (don't ask where it comes from) available for some time.

There will definitely be a lot of movement to the less affected areas, sometimes with force. That will also cause problems there - up to people eating the seeds from the fields. Expect a lot of fighting.

I'd expect people all over the world to survive the catastrophe, though mainly alone or in small groups. Technological recovery should be pretty quick once fairly normal weather and enough food production is established at least in some areas of the world.

Instead of 6 billion people, we'll have 1 billion people in the best case (of a large explosion) and 6 million in the worst - except if nations go ballistic over the crisis, which might reduce the number of survivors to a few thousand.

Switzerland, btw., only stores a months food supply in their bunkers afaik. Some even store food for a year for their inhabitants, but I suppose that was reduced after the end of the cold war.

 

[sunsurf]

I read that the scenario described in that documentary was a "worst-case" scenario--it won't necessarily be that strong an eruption.

Marc Steigler in his novelette, "The Gentle Seduction" had a good idea--they use nanotechnology to construct long tubes extending from the caldera to siphon off the excess heat, cooling down the caldera. This was for a volcano in the Pacific Northwest.

I guess the tubes would have to be built/inserted by tiny robots.

This whole thing is another argument for colonizing space. Bringing cultural records and artifacts to the Moon for safekeeping would be an interesting project.

 

[stevep]

I read that the scenario described in that documentary was a "worst-case" scenario--it won't necessarily be that strong an eruption.

Marc Steigler in his novelette, "The Gentle Seduction" had a good idea--they use nanotechnology to construct long tubes extending from the caldera to siphon off the excess heat, cooling down the caldera. This was for a volcano in the Pacific Northwest.

I guess the tubes would have to be built/inserted by tiny robots.

This whole thing is another argument for colonizing space. Bringing cultural records and artifacts to the Moon for safekeeping would be an interesting project.

I think its unlikely we could get the technology to tap a caldera for a while yet, at least not safely. However, once we do, that could ease some of the world's energy problems.

Steve

 

[Hapsburg]

99% of humanity starves to death. No harvest for at least one year, and reduced harvests for several years.

Hey, they could always eat each other. That would still skim the pop down to about 50%, but still better than only 1% being left.

 

[stevep]

Hey, they could always eat each other. That would still skim the pop down to about 50%, but still better than only 1% being left.

I think Jolo has already suggested this, rather more subtly through. Unfortunately I think your maths are wrong. Meat wouldn't last long especially with no power for refrigeration. Hence you would have a much higher death toll to get the food needed to get some survivors through. [Ignoring other effects of the eruption, or the chaos that such a social breakdown would cause].

Steve

 

[Bulldawg85]

San Andreas

With the recent news about the San Andreas fault near LA being very unstable might not the caldera going up set that off too?

 

[jolo]

I think its unlikely we could get the technology to tap a caldera for a while yet, at least not safely. However, once we do, that could ease some of the world's energy problems.

Steve

The main problem appears to be that releasing some pressure would lead to gas trapped in the lava expanding and building up even more pressure. Digging an artificial vulcano could therefore lead to the caldera being triggered. But that appears to be a manageable problem - if politicians set aside the few (hundred?) billions needed for that...

Not only the energy problems could be solved for some time - also the market for construction materials could be swamped. Not to mention all the minerals and gasses coming up this way.

 

[jolo]

With the recent news about the San Andreas fault near LA being very unstable might not the caldera going up set that off too?

I do believe that one catastrophe can trigger another - there is a lot of geological activity around all the times of major impacts afaik, vulcanos tend to blow up in winter because of the lower air pressure and the accordingly higher relative internal pressure, earthquakes in some areas happen in a foreseeable sequence as they "charge" the rocks in surrounding places, and so on.

But it's most likely imo that the changes in geology due to the internal pressures in the caldera will eventually lead to a land slide or an uplifting of material, which will release the energy in one spot and trigger the catastrophe. The energy in the caldera is much higher than the energy reacing it from afar.

 

[At-Bari]

Humanity would probably survive but all civilizations would fall. I fear all the fundamentalists in the world would see this as a sign of God(s) wrath and start killing each other. If it weren't for all those millions of people starving in China, that civilization could survive, the same for Latin-America. Imagine no sun for months and raining ashes.