If Yellowstone were to erupt....

MGP wrote:Its an interesting idea, but the nearest glaciers, (Glacier National Park), are at least 30-40 miles
distant from even the southern boundary of the caldera.

Oh good. That's actually quite reassuring.

A lot more complicated than that.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/110119-yellowstone-park-supervolcano-eruption-magma-science/

Plus, the caldera and the other surface features in the area are moving relative to the underlying hotspot that feeds the process. The oldest calderas are dozens (huundreds?) of miles away from the most recent one. And only one or two Yellowstone eruptions out of every hundred is a super volcano eruption. The vast majority of Yellowstone eruptions are relatively ordinary.

The Yellowstone system is really complex.

What I found irritating was in the last show I watched on it two scientists -scientists!- said "Well maybe the hotspot will move too far under the mountains and the extra weight will be too much for it and will keep it capped."

Idiots. Go look at a freaking map, that hotspot as been blasting it's way through mountains for many millions of years. But, no, I'm sure it will stop now, since we're on the scene and all. I'm sure mere geology wouldn't dare to happen with all us mighty humans around. *facedesk*

Andor wrote:The Yellowstone system is really complex.

What I found irritating was in the last show I watched on it two scientists -scientists!- said "Well maybe the hotspot will move too far under the mountains and the extra weight will be too much for it and will keep it capped."

Idiots. Go look at a freaking map, that hotspot as been blasting it's way through mountains for many millions of years. But, no, I'm sure it will stop now, since we're on the scene and all. I'm sure mere geology wouldn't dare to happen with all us mighty humans around. *facedesk*

I've heard that theory, of course the scientist said that it would only take 100,000 years or so before continental drift moved the mountain over the hotspot.

Thirdbase wrote:
I'm not a vulcanologist, but I am fairly sure that you aren't going to get rivers of lava. It's the wrong type of volcano.

Mt. Saint Helens, just over 1 cubic km. Krakatoa ejected about 25 cubic km of stuff. Tambora in 1815 around 100 cubic km, it caused the "year without a summer." The last Yellowstone eruption is thought to be 1000 cubic km of stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lava_Creek_Tuff

I think that effects have been a bit understated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index

At present we don't know. Hope we don't get burned finding out. Note the following:

http://www.icr.org/article/declining-po ... volcanoes/

They have an interesting map and diagram showing North American explosive results, which is under others, and relative volumes.

DDHv wrote:
At present we don't know. Hope we don't get burned finding out. Note the following:

http://www.icr.org/article/declining-po ... volcanoes/

They have an interesting map and diagram showing North American explosive results, which is under others, and relative volumes.

Generally, us not knowing it is commonplace for future events, I guess...
Other than that, I looked at that "article". Besides those figures, which might have a connection to reality - well let me put it this way: The author should drop his claim to a Ph.D. - urgently and voluntarily.
Moreover, he might consider switching his field of research to more "safe" fields like e.g. number theory...

anwi wrote:

DDHv wrote:
At present we don't know. Hope we don't get burned finding out. Note the following:

http://www.icr.org/article/declining-po ... volcanoes/

They have an interesting map and diagram showing North American explosive results, which is under others, and relative volumes.

Generally, us not knowing it is commonplace for future events, I guess...
Other than that, I looked at that "article". Besides those figures, which might have a connection to reality - well let me put it this way: The author should drop his claim to a Ph.D. - urgently and voluntarily.
Moreover, he might consider switching his field of research to more "safe" fields like e.g. number theory...

The article was a layman's level summary, ICR does research on a post graduate level. The real meat is in checking out the articles in the bibliography. I've looked at their quarterly, and was able to at least roughly understand about 2/3 of the articles.

As to the meat of the article: we know which are the oldest explosions by which ejecta are under the others. We can estimate the amount of the ejecta by measuring. It is possible that Yellowstone will have another major blast, but at present, older North American eruptions were much larger than the newer ones. Using creationist assumptions, ICR points to this as evidence of lower vulcanism as time from Noah's flood increases. Other assumptions are possible, but should be backed up by evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Other sources reference the two Yellowstone and the Mt. St. Helens eruption results, and the ICR article seems to be correct there. For the others I don't have alternate sources.

DDHv wrote:

DDHv wrote:
At present we don't know. Hope we don't get burned finding out. Note the following:

http://www.icr.org/article/declining-po ... volcanoes/

They have an interesting map and diagram showing North American explosive results, which is under others, and relative volumes.

anwi wrote:Generally, us not knowing it is commonplace for future events, I guess...
Other than that, I looked at that "article". Besides those figures, which might have a connection to reality - well let me put it this way: The author should drop his claim to a Ph.D. - urgently and voluntarily.
Moreover, he might consider switching his field of research to more "safe" fields like e.g. number theory...

The article was a layman's level summary, ICR does research on a post graduate level. The real meat is in checking out the articles in the bibliography. I've looked at their quarterly, and was able to at least roughly understand about 2/3 of the articles.

As to the meat of the article: we know which are the oldest explosions by which ejecta are under the others. We can estimate the amount of the ejecta by measuring. It is possible that Yellowstone will have another major blast, but at present, older North American eruptions were much larger than the newer ones. Using creationist assumptions, ICR points to this as evidence of lower vulcanism as time from Noah's flood increases. Other assumptions are possible, but should be backed up by evidence if they are to be taken seriously.

Other sources reference the two Yellowstone and the Mt. St. Helens eruption results, and the ICR article seems to be correct there. For the others I don't have alternate sources.

Interesting enough, the article doesn't mention time frames for the three major super eruptions of the Yellowstone hot spot. The first was indeed the largest at 2.1 million years ago. The second was the smallest of the three about 1.3 million years ago, and the third was larger than the second about 640,000 years ago. Doesn't fit in well with their view that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or their main premise that the size of eruptions is decreasing with time. Also noted he didn't discuss the Toba eruption of 80,000 years ago, which apparently almost wiped out the human race. Nothing like selectively choosing your data to prove your point.
God wrote the program, evolution is the output, meteor strikes are the reset button

DDHv wrote:The article was a layman's level summary, ICR does research on a post graduate level. The real meat is in checking out the articles in the bibliography.(snip)

My objection is to calling what the ICR does science. It's proselytizing. Under that heading, I've no objections. But calling it science is a perversion. Using scientific titles in this context for projecting an illusion of seriousness is scientific malfeasance.
If I stumble across these things, I apply a good rule of the thumb: "Rubbish in, rubbish out." Consequently, I wouldn't look for meat in that one.
Back to the Yellowstone hotspot: If it should break out in our times, there might be one (albeit minor) positive aspect to it. It would rid us of a lot of this kind of propaganda, if I get my bearings right...

It is interesting how often when discussing the work of someone with other assumptions, logical errors are made. One logical error is disparaging the other person instead of testing the evidence. I think this is called the ad hominem error (spelling probably not correct).

[quote=anwi]Besides those figures, which might have a connection to reality - well let me put it this way: The author should drop his claim to a Ph.D. - urgently and voluntarily.
Moreover, he might consider switching his field of research to more "safe" fields like e.g. number theory...[/quote]

Another is to state it is not worth checking the evidence.

[quote=anwi]Consequently, I wouldn't look for meat in that one.[/quote] Ie, "Don't try to confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."

Another is to switch to another argument that doesn't touch the one used. Usually by ignoring what was actually said.

[quote=fallsfromtrees]Interesting enough, the article doesn't mention time frames for the three major super eruptions of the Yellowstone hot spot. The first was indeed the largest at 2.1 million years ago. The second was the smallest of the three about 1.3 million years ago, and the third was larger than the second about 640,000 years ago. Doesn't fit in well with their view that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or their main premise that the size of eruptions is decreasing with time. Also noted he didn't discuss the Toba eruption of 80,000 years ago, which apparently almost wiped out the human race. Nothing like selectively choosing your data to prove your point. [/quote]

Galileo got into trouble by proselytizing for Copernicus' solar centered astronomy, not for his own experimental work. I've no problem with pushing a viewpoint, just with lack in any of historical, experimental, observational, predictive, OR logical rigor. Of course, my thinking that the universe should make sense is a faith based assumption.

The article only discussed which layer of ash was on top of which, nothing about absolute dates, which is covered elsewhere. Every form of radioactive dating that I know about has several assumptions which have not been proven. Example: note how many of them have the two variables in the same formula of starting parent isotope amount and starting daughter isotope amount. With two variables in one formula, no certain result can be made. Worse, many lava flows get multiple datings depending on which method has been used. BTW, experiments have shown variable decay rates in at least two unstable isotopes. At present no one has come up with a good reason why. These were discovered by accident, and no one knows which others will get like results. For one:

Stober, D. The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements. Stanford Report. Posted on news.stanford.edu August 23, 2010, accessed August 25, 2010.

On this I would like experiments on many unstable isotopes The other one known to me is a thorium isotope which changes its decay rate in response to extreme, sudden pressures. Why???

Just why should mention of an Indonesian eruption be put into a discussion of ash spewing North American eruptions? Is there some way of identifying Toba ash in North America?

Can any theory be tested without going to data? Can using another theory to argue against it be testing it unless you can show the other theory connects solidly to data?

If a person does not argue to either data or assumptions, why should any attention be paid to his conclusions?