Does the existence of supervolcanoes put a hard limit on mankind's future development?

[Leaper]

One of the posts in a MPSIMS thread mentioned the Yellowstone supervolcano, which, if it erupted, would cut down on the global population significantly and retard human progress amid cultural chaos for probable centuries.

Cecil's article on the subject (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2834/is-yellowstone-park-sitting-on-a-supervolcano-thats-about-to-blow) mentions others across the globe. Now, I realize that, per that article, the likelihood of this happening within the lifetime of anyone living today is rather slim (the USGS itself (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/2005/docudrama.html) wonders if there will be "ever" another eruption there). Further, I get the impression that the idea of anything being "overdue" in a geological sense is actually rather absurd.

Still, we have plenty of threads that talk about going to the stars and our future development as a race and such. So ignoring for now all the stuff about FTL and what have you that usually comes up in those threads, does the existence of supervolcanoes, by themselves, limit how far we can go as a race? Feel free to factor in the possibility of technological advances that would "defuse" them, and how long you think that'd take to develop.

[Quartz]

I'm not so sure.

Humanity is too widely spread. Yellowstone blowing wouldn't have too much an effect (relatively) on Brazil, for instance. Similarly, if Taupo in New Zealand blows, then NZ is pretty much toast. Yes, it will suck for a year or two, but super-eruptions are not extinction level events. And, as I understand it, Yellowstone blowing wouldn't directly affect the West Coast of America. Further, after a few years, all that volcanic ash will make for super-fertile farming land.

However, as you indicate, there are the geopolitical implications. If we have a 'year without a summer' as in 1415 - or several - and China or India start to starve, will they see this as a benefit - reducing their populations to more manageable levels - or will they try to seize food?

[Neidhart]

I don't know. The entire North American continent covered with four inches of ash (no more crops, planes can't fly, internal combustion engines would all choke up) and a thousand-year-long ice age -- sounds like bye-bye civilization to me.

[iamnotbatman]

We just need a strategic ice cube reserve. Ice cubes counteract lava... right? No? Okay then, we can blow up the volcanoes with atomic bombs. Wha? OK sdmarty pants, they contained chernoble, they can contain a volcano. Probly only needs to be twice the size of hoover damn. And I'm sure if we were all really in danger the duct tape company would pitch in, which kind of renders it all a moot point. OK OK bnut really, if civilization advanced enough, it's not inconceivable we could detect pressure build-up and use strategic underground nuclear weapons to release the pressure before any catastrophic happens. That's not so hard to believe, is it?

[appleciders]

I don't know. The entire North American continent covered with four inches of ash (no more crops, planes can't fly, internal combustion engines would all choke up) and a thousand-year-long ice age -- sounds like bye-bye civilization to me.

You know, there is civilization outside North America. I realize we might be looking at the end of the NFL, but there is more to life than that.

[Leaper]

But as I said, even then, there would be widespread upheaval and death outside the Americas even so. That would certainly retard the progress of civilization everywhere. But would it be enough so that they wouldn't get far enough to prevent the next eruption? Or to get to the flying car (finally!) stage?

[appleciders]

No. All of mankind's technological progress has come in a tiny fraction of time since the last supervolcano eruption. Given the entire interval between eruptions and the giant head start of whatever technology survives the eruption, we will certainly be able to exceed whatever we have created in this interval.

[Der Trihs]

I'm not so sure.

Humanity is too widely spread. Yellowstone blowing wouldn't have too much an effect (relatively) on Brazil, for instance. Similarly, if Taupo in New Zealand blows, then NZ is pretty much toast. Yes, it will suck for a year or two, but super-eruptions are not extinction level events. And, as I understand it, Yellowstone blowing wouldn't directly affect the West Coast of America. It's my understanding that one of the larger Yellowstone eruptions would reach the entire west half of the country; basically draw a line through the nation up from the east edge of Texas up into Canada; everything west of that gets hit hard or outright devastated. And weather would be affected worldwide.

I don't know. The entire North American continent covered with four inches of ash (no more crops, planes can't fly, internal combustion engines would all choke up) and a thousand-year-long ice age -- sounds like bye-bye civilization to me.Also, buildings collapse under the ash. Ash is heavy; it's basically powdered rock.

[elfkin477]

It's my understanding that one of the larger Yellowstone eruptions would reach the entire west half of the country; basically draw a line through the nation up from the east edge of Texas up into Canada; everything west of that gets hit hard or outright devastated. And weather would be affected worldwide.

Also, buildings collapse under the ash. Ash is heavy; it's basically powdered rock. What's the density per square inch of ash vs wet snow? It usually takes 2-3 feet of ice and snow combined to collapse the roof of a home, so is ash that much more dense that only a few inches would do the same?

[Der Trihs]

What's the density per square inch of ash vs wet snow? It usually takes 2-3 feet of ice and snow combined to collapse the roof of a home, so is ash that much more dense that only a few inches would do the same?
I found a page on the subject here (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/build/index.html). Also mentioned here (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/Rabaul/32923351-012_caption.html), I'll quote it since it's the same depth of four inches that was in the comment I was responding to:

For a dry layer of ash about 10 cm (4 in) thick, the extra load on a building can range 40-70 kg/m2 (120 to 200 lb/yd2); a wet layer might reach 100-125 kg/m2 (300-350 lb/yd2).

[elfkin477]

I found a page on the subject here (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/build/index.html). Also mentioned here (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/Rabaul/32923351-012_caption.html), I'll quote it since it's the same depth of four inches that was in the comment I was responding to: Okay. I'm not great at math, so you might need to make corrections, but it looks like wet snow is ~50lbs/square foot (one cite said up to 62.5lbs, but let's go with the figure here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7137657&postcount=2) at 50lbs) and a square yard is the same as nine feet square - this is the part where I'm iffy. Is that right? - so it's 450lbs/square yard then?

But anyway, it looks like wet ash would be pretty damn bad for the roof too.

[Sunspace]

Okay. I'm not great at math, so you might need to make corrections, but it looks like wet snow is ~50lbs/square foot (one cite said up to 62.5lbs, but let's go with the figure here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7137657&postcount=2) at 50lbs) and a square yard is the same as nine feet square - this is the part where I'm iffy. Is that right? - so it's 450lbs/square yard then?A square yard is nine square feet (a square one yard, or three feet, on a side; 3 x 3 = 9), not nine feet square (nine feet on a side, which is 81 square feet).

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Time to colonize Luna.

[Boyo Jim]

... internal combustion engines would all choke up..

As NASCAR goes, so goes the world.

[Quartz]

I don't know. The entire North American continent covered with four inches of ash (no more crops, planes can't fly, internal combustion engines would all choke up) and a thousand-year-long ice age -- sounds like bye-bye civilization to me.

From where do you get the thousand-year ice age?

[PlainJain]

This is why we should be terraforming Mars right now!

[elfkin477]

A square yard is nine square feet (a square one yard, or three feet, on a side; 3 x 3 = 9), not nine feet square (nine feet on a side, which is 81 square feet).So...what's 50lbs/square foot in square yards then? I understand the distinction you're making, but not how to fix the math.

[DMark]

Call in British Petroleum - I hear they are fast and efficient and stopping things from spewing from the earth.

[Maus Magill]

North America would be toast if Yellowstone were to erupt. As someone one upthread pointed out: there's more to civilization than North America.

The question everyone outside of North America must ask themselves is: with all that sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere, how well will we survive five or six years without a growing season?

[Boyo Jim]

I'm sure there will be plenty of crunchy and nutritious frozen corpses around .

[Todderbob]

There's no (reasonable,) conceivable way to stop a super volcano. The technology and manpower required would be so absolutely massive it'd be cheaper to just build 6 or so billion habitation modules on the moon for a few decades, let the dust clear (literally) and come back later. By the time we reach a technological level to diffuse something like Yellowstone, things like Yellowstone won't need diffusing (for the survival of the human race).

We're already capable of maintaining small populations in secure centers, there's no reason 500-1000 people in multiple areas couldn't stage bunker down and live through the eruption, and that's likely what would happen, along with individual survivors. Humans are tough, we're like lice -- you only need one in a million to survive, and you still have 6000 survivors, more than enough to repopulate the planet. Now, whether those six thousand or so would be able to find each other would be another matter.

Survivors might be limited to certain areas (say, a few dozen in DC, a few dozen in Mumbai, etc), which would make things significantly more difficult, but not impossible.



And if we can get by without an extinction level event for the next few centuries, we'll likely have (I really hope we'll have, at least) the technology to live in closed systems, or at least mostly closed systems. And if you can get a closed enough system, you can live in space, or pretty much anywhere.

[Duckster]

It's my understanding that one of the larger Yellowstone eruptions would reach the entire west half of the country; basically draw a line through the nation up from the east edge of Texas up into Canada; everything west of that gets hit hard or outright devastated. And weather would be affected worldwide.

Last I checked the prevailing winds blow west to east. The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/properties.html) offers some good background on ash dispersal and wind patterns. Just shift the ash patterns from the 1980 eruption (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/Maps/may18_ashmap.html) to Yellowstone as an example. Of course, the eruptive potential of Yellowstone is on a scale far beyond that of Mount St. Helens and actual blast effects could pretty much take out a significant amount of North America.

The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) rates a 5. The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption rates a 6. The Yellowstone eruptions are estimated to have been an 8. Keep in mind, the scale is logarithmic, with each interval on the scale representing a tenfold increase in observed eruption criteria (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/VEIfigure_en.svg).

The question everyone outside of North America must ask themselves is: with all that sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere, how well will we survive five or six years without a growing season?

Consider this from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo:

The powerful eruption of such an enormous volume of lava and ash injected significant quantities of aerosols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate) and dust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust) into the stratosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere). Sulfur dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide) oxidised in the atmosphere to produce a haze of sulfuric acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid) droplets, which gradually spread throughout the stratosphere over the year following the eruption. The injection of aerosols into the stratosphere is thought to have been the largest since the eruption of Krakatoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa) in 1883, with a total mass of SO2 of about 17 million tons being injected—the largest volume ever recorded by modern instruments (see chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TOMS_SO2_time_nov03.png) and figure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TOMS_SO2_Jun17_91.gif)).

This very large stratospheric injection resulted in a reduction in the normal amount of sunlight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight) reaching the Earth's surface by roughly 10% (see figure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png)). This led to a decrease in northern hemisphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_hemisphere) average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius) (0.9–1.1 °F), and a global fall of about 0.4 °C (0.7 °F).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#cite_note-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#cite_note-17) At the same time, the temperature in the stratosphere rose to several degrees higher than normal, due to absorption of radiation by the aerosols. The stratospheric cloud from the eruption persisted in the atmosphere for three years after the eruption.

The eruption had a significant effect on ozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone) levels in the atmosphere, causing a large increase in the destruction rate of ozone. Ozone levels at mid-latitudes reached their lowest recorded levels, while in the southern hemisphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_hemisphere) winter of 1992, the ozone hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole) over Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica) reached its largest ever size until then, with the fastest recorded ozone depletion rates. The eruption of Mount Hudson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hudson) in Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile) in August 1991 also contributed to southern hemisphere ozone destruction, with measurements showing a sharp decrease in ozone levels at the tropopause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause) when the aerosol clouds from Pinatubo and Hudson arrived.

Another noticeable effect of the dust in the atmosphere was the appearance of lunar eclipses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse). Normally even at mid-eclipse, the moon is still visible although much dimmed, but in the year following the Pinatubo eruption, the moon was hardly visible at all during eclipses, due to much greater absorption of sunlight by dust in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

[Boyo Jim]

There's no (reasonable,) conceivable way to stop a super volcano. ...

I don't think that's true at all given the pace knowledge and technology are advancing. I can conceive of a way right now -- map the core and mantle of the earth, measure the pressures of the magma pools, and release the dangerous pressures in non-catastrophic ways.

I dunno HOW to map, measure, or bleed off the pressure, but I don't see any reason we won't develop the technology to do so. Maybe in a couple of hundred years, maybe sooner or maybe later. But I'd bet we'll have that technology sooner than say, a hundred thousand years. Well, I'd bet if I was gonna be alive ling enough to either pay or collect on the bet.

[Todderbob]

I don't think that's true at all given the pace knowledge and technology are advancing. I can conceive of a way right now -- map the core and mantle of the earth, measure the pressures of the magma pools, and release the dangerous pressures in non-catastrophic ways.

I dunno HOW to map, measure, or bleed off the pressure, but I don't see any reason we won't develop the technology to do so. Maybe in a couple of hundred years, maybe sooner or maybe later. But I'd bet we'll have that technology sooner than say, a hundred thousand years. Well, I'd bet if I was gonna be alive ling enough to either pay or collect on the bet.Right, but is that technology reasonable?


For instance; while we might be able to theoretically do that with unfathomably expensive (by our standards) technology, with equally (or perhaps less) unfathomably expensive technology, we could relocate everyone on Earth -- would it cost less to drastically, dynamically and persistently alter the geology of the Earth, or move humanity to the moon?

ETA: Also, not really a "conceivable way," really more of a "just maybe we might be able to kind of do something to fix it." (I don't say that insultingly, I just can't think of a better way to phrase it.)

[Boyo Jim]

I dunno what it will cost either, but another bet I'd make (if possible) is that it won't be as expensive as the cost of destroying the surface environment of the Earth. Or as pricey as constructing a new environment elsewhere for the entire population of the earth and then moving the entire population to the new place.

[Magiver]

There are already vents in Yellowstone park. If there was any indication of a massive rise in the landscape we could just set up automated drilling rigs in conjunction with the vents.

[Todderbob]

I dunno what it will cost either, but another bet I'd make (if possible) is that it won't be as expensive as the cost of destroying the surface environment of the Earth. Or as pricey as constructing a new environment elsewhere for the entire population of the earth and then moving the entire population to the new place.You wouldn't have to move the entire population, I mean, you'd have to move quite a few of them, if not to space than at least around the Earth. You'd definitely need to build new structures, or at least some way of protecting the current structures.

There are already vents in Yellowstone park. If there was any indication of a massive rise in the landscape we could just set up automated drilling rigs in conjunction with the vents.I don't think you could, in fact.

It's not like drilling for oil. Drilling for oil is easy, by comparison. The depths and pressures, and size, of the caldera is ridiculously beyond anything we have the ability to deal with. It's not like tapping a keg.

[Boyo Jim]

You wouldn't have to move the entire population, I mean, you'd have to move quite a few of them, if not to space than at least around the Earth. You'd definitely need to build new structures, or at least some way of protecting the current structures.

I don't think you could, in fact.

It's not like drilling for oil. Drilling for oil is easy, by comparison. The depths and pressures, and size, of the caldera is ridiculously beyond anything we have the ability to deal with. It's not like tapping a keg.

It might be exactly like tapping a keg, or controlling a huge steam engine with pressure relief valves. Or maybe we will be able to draw off the heat for energy with some form of geothermal tap, and the loss of heat will lessen the pressure.

Honestly, among all the potential environmental threats to humankind, this seems not nearly as big a threat as some others, though maybe more likely to happen sooner.

[Foggy]

Defusing Yellowstone:


The Geothermic Siphon (An Ideal Solution) (http://www.365tomorrows.com/03/06/the-geothermic-siphon-an-ideal-solution/)











:p

[Misery Loves Co.]

Defusing Yellowstone:


The Geothermic Siphon (An Ideal Solution) (http://www.365tomorrows.com/03/06/the-geothermic-siphon-an-ideal-solution/)

:p


Cute story - The part that made me laugh was the assertion that governments from around the world would chip in to avoid the disaster.

The likelier reality would be a bunch of partisan bickering until the damned thing blew, and the last broadcasts of human kind would show one political party or another saying "well, we didn't have reasonable proof at the time".

[Boyo Jim]

Perhaps government is one of the technologies that will improve in the future.

[Misery Loves Co.]

Perhaps government is one of the technologies that will improve in the future.

Thanks for that additional chuckle!

[Todderbob]

It might be exactly like tapping a keg, or controlling a huge steam engine with pressure relief valves. Or maybe we will be able to draw off the heat for energy with some form of geothermal tap, and the loss of heat will lessen the pressure.

Honestly, among all the potential environmental threats to humankind, this seems not nearly as big a threat as some others, though maybe more likely to happen sooner.

I think it's as big a threat and its one of the more difficult to tackle. We've been to space, we've launched objects large enough to use as a gravity tug on a celestial body, at least with enough time. On the other hand, we don't have an even "in theory" technology for drilling deep enough to tap that keg.

[Anne Neville]

I think it's as big a threat and its one of the more difficult to tackle. We've been to space, we've launched objects large enough to use as a gravity tug on a celestial body, at least with enough time. On the other hand, we don't have an even "in theory" technology for drilling deep enough to tap that keg.

There are some practical problems with trying to drill a volcano. How do you keep your drill equipment from melting, or at least overheating? Volcanoes also have a habit of doing things like creating rivers of molten rock and pools of boiling water, which make a hazardous environment for any kind of construction work. Yellowstone in particular is a hazardous place to go walking around, if you don't stay on the paths. There is sometimes thin ground that a person walking can break through and fall into boiling water or mud. What do you think is going to happen if someone tries to bring heavy drilling equipment into an area like that?

There are some legal problems, too. What if we drill, the volcano goes off, and some geologists think that the drilling might have triggered the eruption? Can the people who did the drilling be sued? Or, alternatively, we don't drill, and the volcano erupts. Can the people who could have drilled but didn't be sued for negligence?

[Todderbob]

There are some practical problems with trying to drill a volcano. How do you keep your drill equipment from melting, or at least overheating? Volcanoes also have a habit of doing things like creating rivers of molten rock and pools of boiling water, which make a hazardous environment for any kind of construction work. Yellowstone in particular is a hazardous place to go walking around, if you don't stay on the paths. There is sometimes thin ground that a person walking can break through and fall into boiling water or mud. What do you think is going to happen if someone tries to bring heavy drilling equipment into an area like that?

There are some legal problems, too. What if we drill, the volcano goes off, and some geologists think that the drilling might have triggered the eruption? Can the people who did the drilling be sued? Or, alternatively, we don't drill, and the volcano erupts. Can the people who could have drilled but didn't be sued for negligence?Not only that, but say you do drill a series of holes large enough to make a difference in the pressure, somehow, and that the equipment didn't melt on the way down, and you constructed some amazing new material that didn't collapse under the ridiculous pressure that the earth puts on empty spaces that deep, how do you keep the molten rock molten, and flowing? If it hardens up -- as molten rock is prone to doing -- it's just going to clog up and you'll have to drill an entirely new hole, having relieved almost no pressure.

There just isn't a clear cut, simple solution to delaying, much less stopping, an eruption of this magnitude. Hell, there might not even be a solution at all. Yellowstone is caused by a thin bit of crust (a hotspot), the same way Hawaii is. You're not talking about poking a hole in a soda can, you're talking about literally altering the crust and possibly even the mantle of the earth.

ETA: now that I think about it, it might just be easier to construct a huge dome over yellowstone, let it erupt and then deconstruct the dome than trying to stop yellowstone. It's certainly more feasible at this point.

[toadspittle]

North America would be toast if Yellowstone were to erupt. As someone one upthread pointed out: there's more to civilization than North America.

The question everyone outside of North America must ask themselves is: with all that sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere, how well will we survive five or six years without a growing season?

You can all send teams here to mine for canned goods.

[Rigamarole]

However, as you indicate, there are the geopolitical implications. If we have a 'year without a summer' as in 1415 - or several - and China or India start to starve, will they see this as a benefit - reducing their populations to more manageable levels - or will they try to seize food?

Come on, in China? They won't care as long as there's enough food to feed the young boys. :p

[Spoke]

North America would be toast if Yellowstone were to erupt. As someone one upthread pointed out: there's more to civilization than North America.

Supervolcanoes are quite capable of causing global extinction level events. So Yellowstone is not just a North American problem.

For example, the supervolcano which created the Siberian Traps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps#Impact_on_prehistoric_life) is believed to be responsible for the Permian-Triassic extinction:

This massive eruptive event spanned the Permian-Triassic boundary, about 250 million years ago, and is widely cited as a cause of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. This extinction event, also called the Great Dying, affected all life on Earth, and is estimated to have killed 90% of species living at the time. Life on land took 30 million years to recover from the environmental disruptions caused by the eruption of the Siberian Traps.

[billfish678]

You can all send teams here to mine for canned goods.

All the chubby Americans buried in the resulting pyroclastic flows should also provide a significant mineable source of food.

[septimus]

I realize we might be looking at the end of the NFL, but there is more to life than that.

You mean the NBA ?

Humans are tough, we're like lice -- you only need one in a million to survive, and you still have 6000 survivors, more than enough to repopulate the planet. Now, whether those six thousand or so would be able to find each other would be another matter.

Here's one plan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0).

[Miller]

There are some legal problems, too. What if we drill, the volcano goes off, and some geologists think that the drilling might have triggered the eruption? Can the people who did the drilling be sued? Or, alternatively, we don't drill, and the volcano erupts. Can the people who could have drilled but didn't be sued for negligence?

One of the advantages of the collapse of civilization is that one no longer has to worry about lawsuits.