Well, at least that would put out all the continent wide wildfires 
So, Denver is at higher altitude isn’t it? Is Denver going to be a nice place to watch this from, or does it get to star in it’s very own remake of Volcano?
Hmm, TheKid is going there this June.
Well, I did plan on using her bedroom as my office once she moved out.
One of these days I need to get around to visiting “Old Faithful.” (Unless the supervolcano dooms us all of course.) It’s just such a laid-back, friendly name for a geyser. I feel somehow less of an American for not having burned hundreds of gallons of gas on a pilgrimage to Old Faithful.
I’m doomed if it blows, I’m in south-central Idaho. There’s no point in my worrying about it.
Been nice knowing ya’ll. 
It all depends on just how bad an eruption is, but for the worst-case scenarios Denver is within the “total destruction” zone where pretty much everything is either pulverized and shot into the stratosphere or is overrun by pyroclastic flows whose speed may push up against Mach 1 and 90-100% of living things will be killed either instantly or in a matter of days. In other words, the higher altitude means diddly-squat.
They call it a supervolcano for a reason, ya know?
Roughly speaking, the estimates I’ve seen for worst case scenarios kills/destroys everything within a circle loosely bounded by such cities as Edmonton, Alberta; Winnepeg, Manitoba; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; Eugene Oregon; Seattle Washington; and Vancouver, British Columbia. Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming will be gone. Most of the two Dakotas, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington will likewise either be vaporized, crushed, shook down, incinerated, buried under ash, or all of the above. Britsh Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba also have significant areas in the “total destruction” zone, as does Kansas. Historically, ashfalls have covered most of Texas and reached into the Gulf of Mexico. Visible ashfalls will be seen over the entire North American continent and will appear in Europe in 2-4 days, with estimates varying from a “dusting” to as much as an inch. World wide temperatures plunge, the skies darken, the US and Canadian “bread basket” areas are destroyed and will remain unusable for decades and that’s after the eruption stops (we have no idea how long a supervolcano eruption lasts) and I would expect the after effects would play merry hell with our civilization for quite some time. A lot of people will die all over the world as agricultural production fails again and again, transportation will be screwed, particularly air travel, and bad times will be had by all.
That is, of course, the worst-case scenario, but even a “small” but major eruption doing just half that damage would still exceed anything in the historical record, kill more than any other natural disaster we’ve got on record, and be very, very bad indeed. For everybody everywhere.
Well, geeze, Broomstick, that was kind of a downer of a post.
Um, sorry about that… next time I speak with God I’ll ask about putting a permanent cork in the thing and turning the heat down on the magma so it doesn’t boil over.
On the morbidly bright side - should such a thing occur it will solve the global warming problem and the current economic crisis will no longer matter to any of us as we’ll have much more immediate and pressing worries.
I love surf ‘n’ turf!
They made Juan de Fuca a saint? Holy cow. (I know, nitpicking an otherwise great post is bad form, but it just stuck out so much to me.)
Anyhoo, if you want to worry more read about the 1783 eruption of Laki.
There’s a theory that a supervolcano eruption (not at Yellowstone) once almost made humans go extinct. The largest eruption in Yellowstone’s history, though, may have been as big as the Toba eruption that almost wiped out humanity…
I wonder if we’re more or less vulnerable to a supervolcano eruption now than we were ~75,000 years ago. Technologies like food storage will be a big help, and we can pretty much guarantee that, if there are places that will be relatively unaffected, there will be some people there, but on the other hand we didn’t have to worry about transporting food from somewhere else back then.
Check the tracker. It seems the larger stuff has gone deep. Which, as I understand, it not good.
And, my last annual review won’t seem so bad, either, so, win!
:eek:
‘Doctor, my stomach hurts.’
‘Really? Hmm, well maybe this will help.’
BLAM
‘AAAAhhhhhhh you shot my leg!’
Man - 25 of them so far today? 3 of them 3+.
Any idea how significant a 3+ quake is?
Got it. Often felt, rarely damage.
Reading between the lines, that Wikipedia article also paints a picture of vulcanologists as irreverent, devil-may-care iconoclasts who don’t particularly care if they are taken seriously by the other sciences or not.
“Yeah, that’s right; I said ‘mega-colossal!’ You got a problem with that? Then invent your own damn index to measure volcanic explosivity! What? ‘Explosivity’ is too a real word! I invented it! Ever poked a stick into molten lava? I do it EVERY DAY. Each second of my life is borrowed time.”
Well here is a diary at DailyKos that claims the situation is NORMAL.
The guy who wrote is some sort of scientician.
Relevant quote:
I missed this one earlier. During the recent Mount St. Helens active period (2004-2008) I had several opportunities to talk/work with several USGS scientists, volcanologists, techys, whomever. In a couple of off the record conversations it was mentioned there is an unsubstantiated theory bouncing around the deep recesses of thought that geological events in one part of the planet do have some impact in other areas of the planet. In other words, a volcanic eruption in the Cascade Range (caused by [del]San[/del] Juan de Fuca Plate subduction - Thanks, ftg!), may be followed months, even years, later by an eruption in Alaska. At one level, this makes sense since the Ring of Fire encapsulates both areas. (In the case of Mount St. Helens, the 2004-2008 activity was not a new event but a continuation of the 1980-1989 eruption event. The surfacing magma from the recent activity was gas poor and provided evidence it was “old magma” from the earlier sequence that wasn’t expelled. There was also some evidence late in the last activity that the volcano itself had some minor negative deformation consistent with the chamber under Mount St. Helens was empty and was not being refilled from supply at greater depth.) The Augustine Volcano eruption in late 2005 and 2006 in Alaska were similiar to the Mount St. Helens eruptions. (This would make some since since both are stratovolcanoes and within the Ring of Fire.)
The real discussion centered around potential connections between the Juan de Fuca subduction and the Yellowstone Supervolcano. Does a subduction “shift” at depth rearrange some of the deep plumbing in the Yellowstone Supervolcano? Unfortunately, since geologic time is generally beyond average human comprehension (let alone recordkeeping!) the empirical evidence just isn’t there for us to research. Perhaps in a million years we might have accumulated some data to find a correlation.
The current earthquake swarm in Yellowstone continues today. As 1010011010 notes, the larger quakes are deep, indicating magma movement at depth. The smaller quakes above and continuing to the surface could be rock structures breaking apart caused by the pressure below. IIRC, that was the initial pattern in September 2004 at Mount St. Helens before the first actual eruption in October.
And he may be correct. (Bear in mind he is merely reporting what the USGS said several days ago and not offering his own view.) Yet, even the experts can be wrong. The recent Mount St. Helens activity caught practically everyone off guard. Events at Three Sisters in central Oregon were occupying the experts because of the pronounced ground deformation in recent years. When Mount St. Helems woke up in 2004, so did the scientists.
Still, it’s fun to speculate. If the current Yellowstone swarm intensifies, we could be in for a great show, nothing at all, or a kiss your ass goodbye event. In any event, this kinda places our current human issues (economy, war, etc.) into some miniscule perspective in the grander scheme of things.
Well, I’m no vulcanologist (or even a geochemist, as the mentioned blogger apparently is) but one potentially significant thing left out is the rather rapid increase in average elevation in the area since 2005. That, to me, is the more worrisome aspect.
As someone mentioned upthread (and Duckster while I was composing this), this has some similarites to the events leading up to the relatively slow eruption that took place at Mount St. Helens during the past few years.
This particular swarm could very well peter out within a week or two, but I’ll speculate to say that I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a significant eruption occurs in this general area within the next few years; a relatively large hydrothermal event if nothing else.