Alternative Yellowstone eruption scenarios?

As it has been a bit in the news lately. I have been wondering if it is such a done deal. A huge violent explosion.

But might there be other scenarios? Ruptures with lava flows. But no really big bang. Maybe the rumblings denote changes in the structure of the system that could defuse a big blast?

The plate is always moving above the hot spot. As it encounters new material, it must divert energy into the new areas.

All I seem to read is massive, explosive eruption. Typing in various versions of " Alternate Yellowstone Volcano eruption." Returns fictional stories. Are there actual records of smaller events that have eased the pressure of the system?

Never mind. The keyword “milder” instead of alternative, got me to some sites.

The thing about super-volcanoes like Yellowstone is that we’ve never had one erupt in all of recorded history, so we don’t really know what they are like and how they erupt.

Ever since we figured out that most of Yellowstone National Park is actually one freaking big volcano, there have been fears about what would happen if it erupts. In the past, it’s erupted every 600,000 years or so. The last eruption was about 640,000 years ago, so some folks think we are overdue for an eruption. Every few years, someone goes into a panic about earthquakes in the area, and another round of WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!! goes flying through the media. That sort of thing sells newspapers (well, back when there were still print newspapers) and generates clicks, so of course the media is going to run with the worst case scenario. The thing is, that 600,000 year cycle isn’t exactly like clockwork. If it goes all the way to 700,000 years this time, that’s no biggie, geologically speaking. “Yeah, it might go soon, but it’s more likely that it will wait a few tens of thousands of years” doesn’t exactly generate the same number of clicks on a news web site.

So ignore the hype. It’s kinda like Amelia Earhart, who is also in the news again. My first reaction was “Oh, they found her again, did they? Where was she this time?” It’s all just media hype. Same with the Yellowstone doom news stories. I just roll my eyes and say “Oh, it’s erupting and we’re all doomed again, is it?”

As far as scientists are concerned, there’s no immediate fear of eruption, and many scientists aren’t sure that there is a big eruption in our near future, geologically speaking. Just because it erupted three times, each about 600,000-ish years apart, is no guarantee there will be a fourth.

It’s probably fairly likely that there will be some eruptions there at some point in the next 50,000 years or so. Yellowstone has had smaller eruptions before, and with all of that hot magma sitting under it, it’s almost a certainty that it will have smaller eruptions again.

The worst-case scenario is pretty bad, though. The last super-eruption there threw out enough stuff to bury the entire state of Texas five feet deep. Imagine that much stuff being thrown into the atmosphere. There’s no good scenario if that happens. We’re talking years of volcanic winter and huge areas covered in ash and debris, the likes of which we have never seen at all in recorded history.

It’s almost guaranteed not to happen in our lifetimes, though.

The magma under Yellowstone naturally rises and falls, and the land rises and falls with it. Earthquakes are common, and media hype saying that we’re all doomed is almost cyclic at this point. Personally, I’m not going to worry about it.

Technically, Yellowstone is always erupting - what do you think is happening with all those geysers? It also burps up clouds of toxic gas that occasionally kill clumps of buffalo or bears or other wildlife.

But, of course, what the media talks about is a major eruption.

From info on this page-

There have been about 30 lesser lava flows since the last big boom 640KY ago. The last 4 have been 164KY, 152KY, ~110KY, 72KY ago.

So they got spread out further and further apart since the last caldera explosion.

One of those would have a significant impact on a large chunk of the park and ash would be a significant nuisance downwind of an eruption.

It does seem that we could be overdue for a minor eruption. Keep an eye on things at this web page.

With what period, and how long ago was the last media hype about it? Are we overdue for a new eruption of media hype?

Reading the WIKI “Yellowstone Hot spot” seemed to say that it isn’t so much the current caldera that is the worry. If I interpret it correctly it is the movement of the plate over the hot spot that leads to the entrapment of the energy. Then a blowout in that new area. The current caldera being all busted up and venting the energy more continuously.

As noted above, Yellowstone is a “hot spot” volcano … the magma comes from the upper mantle … this is different from volcanoes associated with subduction zones … the magma here is from the crust material melting …

The most likely major eruptive event will be lava extrusion like we see in Hawai’i … and not an explosive event like Mt St Helens or Krakatoa … that doesn’t mean Yellowstone won’t explode, but the odds are against it … and it will spit out a buttload of ash over time, but not so much in a given year that it can’t be plowed under …

We’re talking in terms of “thousands of years” here … Seattle is talking in “hundreds of years” … put your money on Mt Rainier detonating before Yellowstone does … unfortunately the Flamingo in Vegas isn’t offering odds, I guess it’s bad PR for them or something …

Simple answer is of course there can be lesser events.

No one has ever accurately predicted an eruption well in advance anywhere. They've come close, when it was already certain that an eruption was imminent, but it takes very special circumstances, and a lot of detailed geological information to come close like that.  As far as I've heard, we don't have the technological expertise to gain the needed information for a complex system such as Yellowstone yet.   

Frankly, it isn’t even certain that a smaller event WOULD “ease the pressure” in the system in a positive way. It’s a bit like earthquakes in that way, I think. I was surprised to learn that what are called “aftershocks” are often more violent than the “official” earthquake. This is no doubt because the geology involved isn’t even a little bit consistent from place to place. A small eruption COULD act to cause the stresses on the system to shift from a fairly stable area, to one that is triggered into catastrophic collapse because of the small change.

A recent report noted increased seismic activity in Yellowstone this year. It didn’t place any additional concern on an imminent eruption, but we still have no idea when or if there could be a major eruption. It does seem as though the worst case scenario is presented as if it is the most likely, and that worst case is so bad that there are a wide range of lesser events no less desirable, but I would assume there must be the possibility of minor eruptions as well that wouldn’t result in massive devastation either.

The thing is, we know what the data from Yellowstone looks like right now, but we don’t know what the data looks like for an imminent eruption of a supervolcano, so we can’t tell if it looks like an imminent eruption. Once it does happen, then we would know what to look for for the next one, but I doubt that will be taken as much comfort.

Kind of like we now know what it looks like when a mountain feels the need to rid itself of one side of it? :smiley:

Nature likes to keep herself interesting.

The Return of Toba
Would make a good movie no?

From The Straight Dope

The Yellowstone hot spot once erupted lava to cover 210,000 km[sup]2[/sup] of land {“Columbia River Basalt Group Stretches from Oregon to Idaho” – USGS – n/d}, that’s why it’s called a supervolcano … not sure it’s fair to say the event 70,000 years ago was larger …

BTW, the photo in that link clearly shows the high water mark for Columbia River floods … where the top soil has been eroded off the basalt … around 800 feet above normal river level … woot … watchwolf no like global cooling …

Can you please provide a credible cite for ‘clumps’ of bison or bears being killed by a toxic cloud? Are you suggesting this cloud is so toxic that animals can’t run away from it? When I was last in Yellowstone the smell of sulfur was sometimes off putting, but I didn’t see any animals dying as a result.

I can imagine the occasional animal stumbling into a hot spring, not being able to get out and dying, but that’s a completely different story. That occasionallyhappens to humans too.

In 2004, five bison were found dead in Norris Basin, apparently poisoned by carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. Normally the toxic gases either diffuse away or are blown away by the wind, but in rare conditions can build up to lethal levels because they’re denser than air. See this article from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

A similar case occurred in the 1890s when eight bears and some other animals were found dead in an area that was named Death Gulch as a result. See this article from Popular Science

Those two cases where also mentioned in the book Death in Yellowstone, which also describes a few other instances of toxic gas build up, not all them fatal but potentially so, including a pit dug for roadwork and a basement not in the park but in the greater Yellowstone area. It’s not a particularly common phenomena but it is a documented one.

I find carbon dioxide poisoning a lot more plausible than hydrogen sulfide poisoning. H[sub]2[/sub]S is a much more potent toxin, true… but it also mightily stinks, and the concentration at which the smell is intolerable is orders of magnitude lower than the lethal concentration. Any air-breathing vertebrate that gets too close to it isn’t going to stay that close.

That is assuming it had a choice in the matter.
Wasnt it iceland that a volcano farted a big bunch of H2S that killed a lot of humans?

Volcanoes produce a lot of interesting gasses. And there’s nothing that says you can’t have both types of gasses (or even several more in addition) at once.

Death by volcanic gasses is a documented thing. It does happen.

H[sub]2[/sub]S also has the charming characteristic that sufficient quantities can numb the olfactory senses, meaning once it gets up to a certain concentration you actually won’t be smelling it anymore.