jimi
Well-known member
Have a look at http://www.mantleplumes.org/index.html and the argument that its all OK cos the earth's core is cooling down seems a trifle facile.
Supervolcano Disaster Movie
- Thread starter clouty
- Start date
Das_Boot
New member
What I said was the probability decreases with time.
It is self evident that there are still volcanos however at one stage in the earths history there were one hell of a lot more.
When you look at the geology of the earth for evidence it is stupid to expect us to return to a state that is apposed to the state we are becoming. Have you heard of Entropy. We,as things stand, cannot return to that state ipso facto with cooling the probability decreases.
I will need to explain.
If you look back geologicaly you see these massive eruptions happen every 100 million years (dont remember exact figure).
The idiot doing the voice over in hushed menacing tones says ' it is now 100 million and six years' implying we are overdue for one.
Can you see how stupid this reasoning is.
It is self evident that there are still volcanos however at one stage in the earths history there were one hell of a lot more.
When you look at the geology of the earth for evidence it is stupid to expect us to return to a state that is apposed to the state we are becoming. Have you heard of Entropy. We,as things stand, cannot return to that state ipso facto with cooling the probability decreases.
I will need to explain.
If you look back geologicaly you see these massive eruptions happen every 100 million years (dont remember exact figure).
The idiot doing the voice over in hushed menacing tones says ' it is now 100 million and six years' implying we are overdue for one.
Can you see how stupid this reasoning is.
Cobra
Well-known member
So it is not all doom and gloom!
[ QUOTE ]
Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States
[/ QUOTE ]
All we need now is an assurance that Blair will be visiting at the time!
[ QUOTE ]
Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States
[/ QUOTE ]
All we need now is an assurance that Blair will be visiting at the time!
ubuysa
New member
[ QUOTE ]
Many Billions of years ago the earth was completley molten it has been cooling ever since. Now how can you use this cooling to predict a state we will return to when the earth was much hotter. It is crap reasoning the probability decreases with time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not true. A large percentage of the Earth's heat comes from the decay of radioactive minerals in the rocks of the crust. I can't remember now how much, but it's a very significant percentage. The Earth is not just cooling down from it's molten creation state (4.5 billion years ago roughly). A small amount of heat is alo generated in the crust by the tidal effect of the Sun and the Moon (but that's very small).
The upper mantle of the Earth (where the magma comes from) is not homogenous, nor is the temperature constant. There are hot spots and cool spots, generally it's hotter under continents and cooler under oceans (the radioactive minerals occur mostly in continental rocks). The middle of a large continental mass like the USA is exactly where the mantle temperatures are likely to be at their highest and so that's where the intrusion of large volumes of magma into the crust is most likely. It is exactly this process that caused the rifting of the supercontinent Pangea.
The Earth is an active and dynamic thermal system, it is not simply cooling down, and it is a mistake to assume that the chances of massive volcanic eruptions is declining.
Tony C.
Many Billions of years ago the earth was completley molten it has been cooling ever since. Now how can you use this cooling to predict a state we will return to when the earth was much hotter. It is crap reasoning the probability decreases with time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not true. A large percentage of the Earth's heat comes from the decay of radioactive minerals in the rocks of the crust. I can't remember now how much, but it's a very significant percentage. The Earth is not just cooling down from it's molten creation state (4.5 billion years ago roughly). A small amount of heat is alo generated in the crust by the tidal effect of the Sun and the Moon (but that's very small).
The upper mantle of the Earth (where the magma comes from) is not homogenous, nor is the temperature constant. There are hot spots and cool spots, generally it's hotter under continents and cooler under oceans (the radioactive minerals occur mostly in continental rocks). The middle of a large continental mass like the USA is exactly where the mantle temperatures are likely to be at their highest and so that's where the intrusion of large volumes of magma into the crust is most likely. It is exactly this process that caused the rifting of the supercontinent Pangea.
The Earth is an active and dynamic thermal system, it is not simply cooling down, and it is a mistake to assume that the chances of massive volcanic eruptions is declining.
Tony C.
Das_Boot
New member
[ QUOTE ]
What I said was the probability decreases with time.
[/ QUOTE ]
What is it about the above statement you dont understand
I did not say it is impossible.
However one day when the earth cools completley it will be impossible.
Therefore looking back at that future time when the earth is cold and saying ooh we once had volcanos we will get them again would be the hight of stupidity.
What I said was the probability decreases with time.
[/ QUOTE ]
What is it about the above statement you dont understand
I did not say it is impossible.
However one day when the earth cools completley it will be impossible.
Therefore looking back at that future time when the earth is cold and saying ooh we once had volcanos we will get them again would be the hight of stupidity.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
I agree with you. In fact my SWMBO started watching the Beeb 2 so called documentary and assumed it was just a continuation of the Beeb 1 drama (which was really really crap IMHO)
The documentary completely failed to address two issues, firstly how predictable such an event is and secondly whether there was anything that could be done to stop it happening. Volcanologists are now able to predict with some degree of accuracy the timing of volcanic eruptions so you would think that, in the future and with continuing scientific advances, it ought to be possible to predict a Yellowstone eruption and hence reduce loss of life. I also find it hard to believe that nobody has given any thought as to whether it would be possible to reduce the pressure build up in the magma chamber by, say, drilling wells into the chamber and bleeding off the gas which causes the pressure build up. I'm perfectly willing to be flamed on this last comment by somebody who knows better
The documentary completely failed to address two issues, firstly how predictable such an event is and secondly whether there was anything that could be done to stop it happening. Volcanologists are now able to predict with some degree of accuracy the timing of volcanic eruptions so you would think that, in the future and with continuing scientific advances, it ought to be possible to predict a Yellowstone eruption and hence reduce loss of life. I also find it hard to believe that nobody has given any thought as to whether it would be possible to reduce the pressure build up in the magma chamber by, say, drilling wells into the chamber and bleeding off the gas which causes the pressure build up. I'm perfectly willing to be flamed on this last comment by somebody who knows better
Sybarite
Well-known member
Out by the skin of our teeth...
During a student vacation I worked in a fish factory in the Vestmann Islands off Iceland. To celebrate mid summer's day a group of us had a midnight picnic (in broad daylight) in the crater of an extinct volcano above the town. Eight years later this volcano erupted and destroyed a fair part of the town.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/heimaey/heimaey.html)
In geological terms we got out in the nick of time. A few months before our arrival a new island had appeared not too far away (Surtsey) and was smoking away while I was there.
You never know when a catclysmic event is going to happen and the same applies for Yellowstone (YS). Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" discusses this in the chapter "Dangerous Beauty". They knew YS was volcanic but couldn't find a volcano anywhere. It was only when they could obtain satellite photos that they realized that the whole of YS or a diameter of 40 miles was caldera.
The Earth's crust is on average about 25 mile thick (cf with 4200 miles to the centre of the Earth) but under YS, it's only about 8 miles thick and the lava ball goes down about 125 miles. It is known as a superplume of which there are about 30 all together. The others are all under the oceans and are associated with the island chains: Canaries, Hawaii, Iceland etc, but YS is the only one under land. Scientists have estimated that YS erupts about once every 600 000 years (judging by ash deposits) and the last one was 630 000 years ago. Bryson equates the explosive potential to a typical county covered by an 8 mile high pile of TNT. Eruptions have been traced back 16 million years but of the last 3, the last was est'd at 1000 times the eruption of Mt St Helens (Washington state 1980 where people were killed up to 30 miles away), the one before that 280 times and the one before that between 2500 and 8000 times.
The Mt St Helen's ash fall-out paralysed the town of Yakima 80 miles away for a few days and it received only an average 1.5 cm of ash. The last YS blast put out enough ash to bury California to a depth of 20' and covered nearly all of America to the west of the Mississippi. This is where half the world's grain is grown. Unlike snow, it doesn't melt away.
The last supervolcano eruption occurred in Indonesia 74000 years ago when a glacial period of at least 6 years followed.
On a recent French TV programme which commented on DNA testing, it was believed that only about 2000 people survived the volcano fall-out and they are from whom all the present Earth's population is descended. Our common ancestor's therefore would appear to have been Kalihari bushmen. The programme focused on the range of facial features of present bushmen demionstrating that they could easily be associated with any of the current races.
I find it fascinating and of course I hope YS doesn't blow when I shall be in N America in a few months. I'm not cancelling my holiday anyway.
John
During a student vacation I worked in a fish factory in the Vestmann Islands off Iceland. To celebrate mid summer's day a group of us had a midnight picnic (in broad daylight) in the crater of an extinct volcano above the town. Eight years later this volcano erupted and destroyed a fair part of the town.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/heimaey/heimaey.html)
In geological terms we got out in the nick of time. A few months before our arrival a new island had appeared not too far away (Surtsey) and was smoking away while I was there.
You never know when a catclysmic event is going to happen and the same applies for Yellowstone (YS). Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" discusses this in the chapter "Dangerous Beauty". They knew YS was volcanic but couldn't find a volcano anywhere. It was only when they could obtain satellite photos that they realized that the whole of YS or a diameter of 40 miles was caldera.
The Earth's crust is on average about 25 mile thick (cf with 4200 miles to the centre of the Earth) but under YS, it's only about 8 miles thick and the lava ball goes down about 125 miles. It is known as a superplume of which there are about 30 all together. The others are all under the oceans and are associated with the island chains: Canaries, Hawaii, Iceland etc, but YS is the only one under land. Scientists have estimated that YS erupts about once every 600 000 years (judging by ash deposits) and the last one was 630 000 years ago. Bryson equates the explosive potential to a typical county covered by an 8 mile high pile of TNT. Eruptions have been traced back 16 million years but of the last 3, the last was est'd at 1000 times the eruption of Mt St Helens (Washington state 1980 where people were killed up to 30 miles away), the one before that 280 times and the one before that between 2500 and 8000 times.
The Mt St Helen's ash fall-out paralysed the town of Yakima 80 miles away for a few days and it received only an average 1.5 cm of ash. The last YS blast put out enough ash to bury California to a depth of 20' and covered nearly all of America to the west of the Mississippi. This is where half the world's grain is grown. Unlike snow, it doesn't melt away.
The last supervolcano eruption occurred in Indonesia 74000 years ago when a glacial period of at least 6 years followed.
On a recent French TV programme which commented on DNA testing, it was believed that only about 2000 people survived the volcano fall-out and they are from whom all the present Earth's population is descended. Our common ancestor's therefore would appear to have been Kalihari bushmen. The programme focused on the range of facial features of present bushmen demionstrating that they could easily be associated with any of the current races.
I find it fascinating and of course I hope YS doesn't blow when I shall be in N America in a few months. I'm not cancelling my holiday anyway.
John
BrendanS
Well-known member
Yes, they monitor now, and can predict to some extent. But what level of warning would be required before they actually evacuated a huge proportion of the US?
The drilling part is unfeasible. people have suggested previously drilling or explosives, but as the magma is not very mobile, and just letting off gas releases in a few areas would have little impact. The current consensus appears to be that the scale of the problem is beyond any current engineering capabilities
The drilling part is unfeasible. people have suggested previously drilling or explosives, but as the magma is not very mobile, and just letting off gas releases in a few areas would have little impact. The current consensus appears to be that the scale of the problem is beyond any current engineering capabilities
Das_Boot
New member
''''If another large caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, its effects would be worldwide. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gases into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate. Fortunately, the Yellowstone volcanic system shows no signs that it is headed toward such an eruption.
The probability of a large caldera-forming eruption within the next few thousand years is exceedingly low. '''
This is a direct quote from the yelowstone people themselves
When you start quoting bill bryson for science I quit
The probability of a large caldera-forming eruption within the next few thousand years is exceedingly low. '''
This is a direct quote from the yelowstone people themselves
When you start quoting bill bryson for science I quit
BrendanS
Well-known member
Why on earth would I want to quote Bill Bryson? The only quotes I've made in the two threads on the subject have been scientific. In fact I posted a link to the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory yesterday on the other thread. The only comments I've made have been factual.
I really can't see why you've got your knickers in such a twist over this.
I really can't see why you've got your knickers in such a twist over this.
Das_Boot
New member
Sorry about that I was replying to sybarite. The reason I get my knickers in a twist is that I dont like beeing taken for a fool by the BBC.
They rob me of my license fee then bull sh*t me.
Adding insult to injury.
They rob me of my license fee then bull sh*t me.
Adding insult to injury.
jimi
Well-known member
Well I would actually prefer that they spent my license fee on an educational matter like this rather than the usual tripe!
Das_Boot
New member
I am glad my children werent educated by the BBC. You would have to sit in on every class correcting the mistakes made by the teacher. The Teacher would then hold a gun to your head and demand money.
jimi
Well-known member
BBC license fee
..you're not a big fan of the licence fee, then?
..you're not a big fan of the licence fee, then?
KevB
Active member
I thought it was intended as light entertainment with a little drama and some mild thought provoking hi lights? Not open university!!
Das_Boot
New member
If it were voluntary I would probably pay it with pleasure.
And as for it beeing light entertainment the documentary was not.
As anyone on this forum knows when sailing you cant just say I was only one degree out I forgot about the tides I thought my draft was 10 feet. I know it might be petty but if you are purveying fact let it be fact.
And as for it beeing light entertainment the documentary was not.
As anyone on this forum knows when sailing you cant just say I was only one degree out I forgot about the tides I thought my draft was 10 feet. I know it might be petty but if you are purveying fact let it be fact.
jhr
Well-known member
OK, I've counted to ten.
The BBC deliver some of the highest quality programmes in the world; their children's programmes, in particular, are streets ahead of the competition as is most of their educational stuff, including their popular science coverage, with programmes such as Horizon explaining complex subjects to a wide audience.
They produce across a wide spectrum, including programmes that would not have a hope in Hell of being broadcast elsewhere because they have a limited audience, and they have a News and Worldwide Broadcasting network that is the envy of the Rest of the World, and a byword for balance and impartiality.
In between all this, they also broadcast programmes aimed at mass markets, of which this was undoubtedly one. It's not intended to be educational, nor is it a science programme, though the accompanying documentary on BBC2 emphatically was.
I'm proud of the BBC and I think the license fee is one of the most outstanding media bargains in the world. I subscribe to Sky because we can't receive a signal on an arial where we live, and have to pay twice as much for hundreds of channels of dire rubbish. That's a bad bargain.
I don't work for the BBC, nor do I have any other axe to grind. No offence, but I think your opinion is misguided and ill-informed.
Harumph........
The BBC deliver some of the highest quality programmes in the world; their children's programmes, in particular, are streets ahead of the competition as is most of their educational stuff, including their popular science coverage, with programmes such as Horizon explaining complex subjects to a wide audience.
They produce across a wide spectrum, including programmes that would not have a hope in Hell of being broadcast elsewhere because they have a limited audience, and they have a News and Worldwide Broadcasting network that is the envy of the Rest of the World, and a byword for balance and impartiality.
In between all this, they also broadcast programmes aimed at mass markets, of which this was undoubtedly one. It's not intended to be educational, nor is it a science programme, though the accompanying documentary on BBC2 emphatically was.
I'm proud of the BBC and I think the license fee is one of the most outstanding media bargains in the world. I subscribe to Sky because we can't receive a signal on an arial where we live, and have to pay twice as much for hundreds of channels of dire rubbish. That's a bad bargain.
I don't work for the BBC, nor do I have any other axe to grind. No offence, but I think your opinion is misguided and ill-informed.
Harumph........
Das_Boot
New member
Did you read my last post?
here it is again maybe it will help you undo the twist in your knickers.
'''''If it were voluntary I would probably pay it with pleasure.
And as for it beeing light entertainment the documentary was not. ''''''
It seems that nobody actualy reads what other people say nor do they actualy listen to the tosh sprouted on these psuedo scientific programmes.
here it is again maybe it will help you undo the twist in your knickers.
'''''If it were voluntary I would probably pay it with pleasure.
And as for it beeing light entertainment the documentary was not. ''''''
It seems that nobody actualy reads what other people say nor do they actualy listen to the tosh sprouted on these psuedo scientific programmes.
KevB
Active member
Wow!!! So much passion about a TV program. I'm amazed they don't put a disclaimer at the start of eastenders for the benefit of some people. Just in case they thought it was a real pub and fancied a pint!!
jerryat
Active member
Well said jhr and I totally agree with you. I've read some of these 'knocking' posts with increasing incredulity. This programme was clearly advertised as a 'docu drama' and, so far as I'm concerned, that what it was, interesting entertainment with an element of informing. The programme was not intended as a statement of what would happen, just what MIGHT, given the alignment of a whole range of possible factors. If it prodded young and old alike to talk about it together and perhaps wonder a bit, surely that's a damn sight better than sitting there glued to the moronic soaps!
Cheers Jerry
Cheers Jerry