Thread: Can we save the world from Yellowstone? (Balloon Theory)

Ladiesand Gentlemen, for some time now I have had a question on my mind that I can’tseem to answer. Can we save the world form Yellowstone? I am not a volcanologistnor am I a geologist. So please, pardon my ignorance.
I am aware that Yellowstone is a super volcano and if it erupts it can cause aglobal catastrophe that will threaten our very existence as a species. Which inthe near future may even happen sooner then we hope. So with that I proposethis theory.
The Balloon Theory: Using the tools that have made us the predominant specieson this planet, we reduce the pressure with in the volcano gradually to eitherbuy humanity time and/or freeze the pressure with in it at current rates justlike you would a balloon with out it popping. How is this done you ask? Well,the technology dose exist, at least in theory with modifications, however it isnot yet used in this application. If one wanted to bleed the air from a balloonwith out it bursting, one might take a pin and pierce the rubber of the balloonat its base where it is thickest and less stressed from the stretch of airpressure. Thus, allowing it to bleed slowly resulting in a controlled reductionof pressure. Now, if this concept is applied to a volcano on a much largerscale, in theory this just might work. A tunnel boring machine (TBM) also known as a"mole", like the one used to dig the orlovski tunnel, inSt.Petersburg could be used to dig several tunnels close to the base of Yellowstone’smagma chamber. Then allow smaller boring machines like the ones used in oildrilling to drill pilot holes for explosive charges to create brake away walls.Since a mechanical valve can not be used these walls act as a means of control.These walls are then used to release more lava flow if needed, say the flow in tunnelone decreases due to age or flow rate tunnel two could then be blown to allowfor more release of magma and ultimately a reduction of pressure with in the volcano.This however, brings up another issue thus, were will the magma go? Well thereare a few options 1000miles west is the Pacific Ocean, or hundreds of milessouth there are several desert areas with not human population. Crazy as this may sound the question thenbecomes; well consider the alternative. Several minor releases of a low flow magnitudeand the minor issues that fallow, or the massive release of catastrophicenergy/destruction and major issues that fallow. That’s a no brainer. On a massivescale such as this it may only seem like a pin prick to the volcano but itcould be the time we need to find a better solution. Yes it may seem like anact of god, but we aren’t talking that are we? We have put a man on the moon,and a computer in our hands; we are coming up with ways to defect asteroids andmeteorites, but all we can do for this is give us a warning when it’s going tohappen; we have got to have something on this! Maybe its time for us to try andfind a solution to this. All problems can be fixed if pool our resources as aworld organization and this is only one of the many we have. Let me know what you think.

Yellowstone is not going to destroy the world in the first place. The forecast global catastrophe is one forecast by only media and not by geologists or volcanologists.

We could dig a hole down to where the magma is building up and let the magma rise up through the pipe to relieve the pressure that is building. Many pipes could be drilled into the ground around the magma chamber to let more pressure release.

First, it would be pretty silly to start digging holes because somebody in Hollywood made a moronic disaster movie with no basis in fact. Second, if you think a hole dug by humans could actually affect a volcano, you really don't have much of an idea of the scale of a volcano.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

First, it would be pretty silly to start digging holes because somebody in Hollywood made a moronic disaster movie with no basis in fact. Second, if you think a hole dug by humans could actually affect a volcano, you really don't have much of an idea of the scale of a volcano.

But if you don't try it then you'll never know if it would work. Don't forget that many sci-fi things are now reality. I'm sure a simulation could be made to see if this would work.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by Harold14370

First, it would be pretty silly to start digging holes because somebody in Hollywood made a moronic disaster movie with no basis in fact. Second, if you think a hole dug by humans could actually affect a volcano, you really don't have much of an idea of the scale of a volcano.

But if you don't try it then you'll never know if it would work. Don't forget that many sci-fi things are now reality. I'm sure a simulation could be made to see if this would work.

You don't get funding with a statement like that. The scope and scale would require some kind of imperative, not doom and gloom from a few outliers.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Yellowstone is not going to destroy the world in the first place. The forecast global catastrophe is one forecast by only media and not by geologists or volcanologists.

Are you sure of your facts there?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Yellowstone is not going to destroy the world in the first place. The forecast global catastrophe is one forecast by only media and not by geologists or volcanologists.

Are you sure of your facts there?

Yes, I am, why do you think I am not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Yellowstone is not going to destroy the world in the first place. The forecast global catastrophe is one forecast by only media and not by geologists or volcanologists.

Are you sure of your facts there?

Yes, I am, why do you think I am not?

OK I agree it isn't likely to cause the destruction of the world (directly) but forgive me if I'm mistaken but hadn't it erupted at least once in the past causing a global catastrophe?

While it has erupted multiple times in the last 2 million years or so, it has not caused any global catastrophe. That is pretty much all media hype used to generate ratings and sensation, the geology and volcanology papers on the area are much mroe reserved about anything regarding eruptions.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

While it has erupted multiple times in the last 2 million years or so, it has not caused any global catastrophe. That is pretty much all media hype used to generate ratings and sensation, the geology and volcanology papers on the area are much mroe reserved about anything regarding eruptions.

The sort of catastrophe I am thinking of was one where the general climate would be colder so it affects crop growth causing famines right around the globe. A couple of degrees drop in temperature is all that it takes, but yes it was from some YouTube documentary that the concepts were given to me. It sounded about right (plausible) nevertheless.

One news report listed that the last 3 eruptions occurred 2 million years ago, then 1.3 million years ago, and lastly 630,000 years ago. So if it has a type of periodicity to it, and eruption could well be due soon (geological time).

Ok it was a YT blurb, now show the peer reviewed literature that makes those assertions of catastrophe.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Ok it was a YT blurb, now show the peer reviewed literature that makes those assertions of catastrophe.

Just don't pull that stunt on me again. I have watched a couple of documentaries on it again and who knows, has no one studied the past eruptions? They were really extrapolating from the caldera in Indonesia and comparing the sizes and estimating the devastation. Is that not a reasonable method?

I will. Yopu have been told multiple times no to bullshit with no backing but yt, and suspended at least three times for not heeding those warnings.

Yes, there are hundreds of papers on the eruptive history of Yellowstone, or did you just ignore what I posted the last two times regarding that?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

I will. Yopu have been told multiple times no to bullshit with no backing but yt, and suspended at least three times for not heeding those warnings.

Yes, there are hundreds of papers on the eruptive history of Yellowstone, or did you just ignore what I posted the last two times regarding that?

No I haven't seen any of those papers. What in this thread or in another?
I have answered your questions and all the time you are just out to get me. You have no right to insist on forcing me to do your dirty work, you can look up the references yourself if you need them. I have told you how the commentators came to those conclusions and that is all I need to do, as well as build an underground bunker and stock up food stores for my family to last for 20 years!

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

No I haven't seen any of those papers. What in this thread or in another?

If you're really interested in scientific journals, you can always get a subscription. You can also get access to online libraries of published articles by obtaining a membership. It's a much better way of getting your dose of scientific news than by going through the mainstream media.

Another caldera that had catastrophic effects

Lake Toba (Indonesian: Danau Toba) is a lake andsupervolcano. The lake is 100 kilometres long, 30 kilometres wide, and up to 505 meters (1,666 ft) deep. Located in the middle of the northern part of the Indonesianisland of Sumatrawith a surface elevation of about 900 metres (2,953 ft), the lake stretches from 2.88°N 98.52°E to 2.35°N 99.1°E. It is the largest lake in Indonesia and the largest volcanic lake in the world.^[1]Lake Toba is the site of a massive supervolcanic eruption estimated at VEI 8 that occurred 69,000 to 77,000 years ago,^[2][3][4] representing a climate-changing event. It is the largest known explosive eruption on Earth in the last 25 million years. According to the Toba catastrophe theory, it had global consequences for human populations: it killed most humans living at that time and is believed to have created a population bottleneck in central east Africa and India, which affects the genetic make up of the human world-wide population to the present.^[5] This hypothesis is not widely accepted because evidence is lacking for a decline or extinction of other animals, including species that are sensitive to changes in the environment.^[6]
It has been accepted that the eruption of Toba led to a volcanic winter with a worldwide decrease in temperature between 3 to 5 °C (5.4 to 9.0 °F), and up to 15 °C (27 °F) in higher latitudes. Additional studies in Lake Malawi in East Africa show significant amounts of ash being deposited from the Toba eruptions, even at that great distance, but little indication of a significant climatic effect in East Africa. ^[7]

Thanks Wikipedia: Lake Toba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, its no me "forcing you to do my dirty work". Its me calling you out on your lack of any research and just relying on sensationalized media portrayals. You have been directed to jstore (which has free subscriptions), to google scholar, to libraries, etc, yet when actually confronted with these suggestions and requests, you claim to not have time. I call bollocks.

You assert massive catastrophe, show the PR papers supporting this for Yellowstone.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

No, its no me "forcing you to do my dirty work". Its me calling you out on your lack of any research and just relying on sensationalized media portrayals. You have been directed to jstore (which has free subscriptions), to google scholar, to libraries, etc, yet when actually confronted with these suggestions and requests, you claim to not have time. I call bollocks.

You assert massive catastrophe, show the PR papers supporting this for Yellowstone.

I haven't been asserting anything like that, infact while looking it up on YT and Wikipedia etc I am tending to the personal view that in the current formation Yellowstone is more likely just to have minor eruptions rather than major ones. Now that is my personal view.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

You assert massive catastrophe,.... supporting this for Yellowstone.

In which of my posts do I make this assertion in your opinion, for I went back over the thread and I couldn't find an actual assertion made by myself.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

No, its no me "forcing you to do my dirty work". Its me calling you out on your lack of any research and just relying on sensationalized media portrayals. You have been directed to jstore (which has free subscriptions), to google scholar, to libraries, etc, yet when actually confronted with these suggestions and requests, you claim to not have time. I call bollocks.

You assert massive catastrophe, show the PR papers supporting this for Yellowstone.

I haven't been asserting anything like that, infact while looking it up on YT and Wikipedia etc I am tending to the personal view that in the current formation Yellowstone is more likely just to have minor eruptions rather than major ones. Now that is my personal view.

Then why bring up toba, why question if any volcanological studies had been made of Yellowstone. You are making a very consistent case that it will be something major happen.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

No, its no me "forcing you to do my dirty work". Its me calling you out on your lack of any research and just relying on sensationalized media portrayals. You have been directed to jstore (which has free subscriptions), to google scholar, to libraries, etc, yet when actually confronted with these suggestions and requests, you claim to not have time. I call bollocks.

You assert massive catastrophe, show the PR papers supporting this for Yellowstone.

I haven't been asserting anything like that, infact while looking it up on YT and Wikipedia etc I am tending to the personal view that in the current formation Yellowstone is more likely just to have minor eruptions rather than major ones. Now that is my personal view.

Then why bring up toba, why question if any volcanological studies had been made of Yellowstone. You are making a very consistent case that it will be something major happen.

I was showing you how the others came to that conclusion, whereas when I looked at it the pressure over Yellowstone doesn't need to build up as it already has ways of "letting off steam".
In NZ we have our own geothermal area and too many people tapped into the heat source for private home heating use etc and the geyser field just about died off. It has been restored once again but it shows that it possible to control these areas to some extent.

So the OP idea of venting the pressure could be possible, but then in practical reality the volume of material under the "done" could be a problem to deal with.

The problem with venting is that its not like venting a chicken Kiev, its like venting a shaken soda. The pressure is not nearly enough to cause an eruption, but as soon as a small release point is made then the whole erupts out.

Geyser activity is just an indication of heat, and not a reliable indicator of activity level. The loss of activity at the NZ field is due to shifting the route the heat from the magma is escaping. The magma that is under the geyser field has not changed hardly at all.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The problem with venting is that its not like venting a chicken Kiev, its like venting a shaken soda. The pressure is not nearly enough to cause an eruption, but as soon as a small release point is made then the whole erupts out.

Geyser activity is just an indication of heat, and not a reliable indicator of activity level. The loss of activity at the NZ field is due to shifting the route the heat from the magma is escaping. The magma that is under the geyser field has not changed hardly at all.

In your opinion what causes the pressure inside the molten magma?

Do you agree with this "Howstuffworks" site? http://science.howstuffworks.com/nat...s/volcano3.htm

The erupting force generally comes from internal gas pressure. The material that forms magma contains a lot of dissolved gases -- gases that have been suspended in the magma solution. The gases are kept in this dissolved state as long as the confining pressure of the surrounding rock is greater than the vapor pressure of the gas. When this balance shifts and vapor pressure becomes greater than the confining pressure, the dissolved gas is allowed to expand, and forms small gas bubbles, called vesicles, in the magma. This happens if one of two things occurs:

• The confining pressure decreases, due to decompression from the magma rising from a higher pressure point to a lower pressure point.
• The vapor pressure increases because the magma cools, initiating a crystallization process that enriches the gas content of the magma.

In either case, what you get is magma filled with tiny gas bubbles, which have a much lower density than the surrounding magma, and so push out to escape. This is the same thing that happens when you open a bottle of soda, particularly after shaking it up. When you decompress the soda (by opening the bottle), the tiny gas bubbles push out and escape. If you shake the bottle up first, the bubbles are all mixed up in the soda so they push a lot of the soda out with them. This is true for volcanoes as well. As the bubbles escape, they push the magma out, causing a spewing eruption.

That makes it sound like cooling the magma could actually make the problem worse.

If the cooling happens under pressure then the gasses become incorporated in the formation of various minerals resulting in rock types along the lines of granites, large crystal grains with varied mineral species present. So no, it will not effect the eruptive capabilities since there is no change in the pressure the magma is under.

The pressure is mechanical, caused by the surrounding lithosphere matrix.

What you have to remember is Bob is an idiot, a stupid idiot. Can a mod put this in his sig?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

If the cooling happens under pressure then the gasses become incorporated in the formation of various minerals resulting in rock types along the lines of granites, large crystal grains with varied mineral species present. So no, it will not effect the eruptive capabilities since there is no change in the pressure the magma is under.

The pressure is mechanical, caused by the surrounding lithosphere matrix.

But what about the amount of material that fall back into the cavity?

What matrial falling back into WHAT cavity?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What matrial falling back into WHAT cavity?

Won't the crust that is sealing the magma lake tend to fall into the liquid? Or will it always float on the magma?
Like if you released the magma won't the land bridge (crust) fall into the cavity?

Originally Posted by mac3629

Several minor releases of a low flow magnitudeand the minor issues that fallow, or the massive release of catastrophicenergy/destruction and major issues that fallow. That’s a no brainer.

Hmm. Spend hundreds of millions digging a tunnel into a lava reservoir that could easily rupture and cause disaster, hoping for an outcome unsupported by the science? Sounds like a no brainer to NOT do it.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by mac3629

Several minor releases of a low flow magnitudeand the minor issues that fallow, or the massive release of catastrophicenergy/destruction and major issues that fallow. That’s a no brainer.

Hmm. Spend hundreds of millions digging a tunnel into a lava reservoir that could easily rupture and cause disaster, hoping for an outcome unsupported by the science? Sounds like a no brainer to NOT do it.

Could the magma be withdrawn in a packaged form, say making construction blocks as it cools, e.g make blocks of granite direct from the molten material. (That is something I have wanted someone to do. Has it ever been done before?)

So now Roberttybob want to make formed slabs of lava rocks.. molded or cast rock.
I will remind him that Lava is almost never the same. The molten magma soup is very different from around the world..
Undersea vents often pour a thick and dense solid.. or a very light Scoria if gasses are present and in the mix.. No or little consistency is observed. Another issue of note is the pressure and risk of drilling into a lava dome.. Just nothing short of madness.. Research the subject a little more and the foolishness will subside..
~ My years of data recovery from ocean vents and fissures has alerted me to the risks of fiddling with what we do not know about..
Careful study and collection of motion sensors data are a safer method.. Move further away, evacuate, and learn of the risks..
Factual information not wild speculations..

So, like, what if we just nuked it a few times.

Originally Posted by astromark

So now Roberttybob want to make formed slabs of lava rocks.. molded or cast rock.
I will remind him that Lava is almost never the same. The molten magma soup is very different from around the world..
Undersea vents often pour a thick and dense solid.. or a very light Scoria if gasses are present and in the mix.. No or little consistency is observed. Another issue of note is the pressure and risk of drilling into a lava dome.. Just nothing short of madness.. Research the subject a little more and the foolishness will subside..
~ My years of data recovery from ocean vents and fissures has alerted me to the risks of fiddling with what we do not know about..
Careful study and collection of motion sensors data are a safer method.. Move further away, evacuate, and learn of the risks..
Factual information not wild speculations..

But imagine if it was great building material. We could make interlocking building blocks at virtually no cost.
That would be some sort of "saving".

Originally Posted by dan hunter

So, like, what if we just nuked it a few times.

Sounds like a death wish to me!

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What matrial falling back into WHAT cavity?

Won't the crust that is sealing the magma lake tend to fall into the liquid? Or will it always float on the magma?
Like if you released the magma won't the land bridge (crust) fall into the cavity?

its Ceiling not sealing.

And if the magma chamber is unbreached then there is no "space/cavity" for the top of the chamber to fall into.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What matrial falling back into WHAT cavity?

Won't the crust that is sealing the magma lake tend to fall into the liquid? Or will it always float on the magma?
Like if you released the magma won't the land bridge (crust) fall into the cavity?

its Ceiling not sealing.

And if the magma chamber is unbreached then there is no "space/cavity" for the top of the chamber to fall into.

I think it might be both ceiling and sealing but never mind. Yes once the magma is released the top of the chamber can then fall into the magma and that no doubt will stir up more chaos.

But that said I'm leaving this thread. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What matrial falling back into WHAT cavity?

Won't the crust that is sealing the magma lake tend to fall into the liquid? Or will it always float on the magma?
Like if you released the magma won't the land bridge (crust) fall into the cavity?

its Ceiling not sealing.

And if the magma chamber is unbreached then there is no "space/cavity" for the top of the chamber to fall into.

I think it might be both ceiling and sealing but never mind. Yes once the magma is released the top of the chamber can then fall into the magma and that no doubt will stir up more chaos.

But that said I'm leaving this thread. Thanks.

If the chamber has been breached then is certainly is not sealing anything anymore. And cite your source for no "doubt stir up more trouble".

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What matrial falling back into WHAT cavity?

Won't the crust that is sealing the magma lake tend to fall into the liquid? Or will it always float on the magma?
Like if you released the magma won't the land bridge (crust) fall into the cavity?

its Ceiling not sealing.

And if the magma chamber is unbreached then there is no "space/cavity" for the top of the chamber to fall into.

I think it might be both ceiling and sealing but never mind. Yes once the magma is released the top of the chamber can then fall into the magma and that no doubt will stir up more chaos.

But that said I'm leaving this thread. Thanks.

If the chamber has been breached then is certainly is not sealing anything anymore. And cite your source for no "doubt stir up more trouble".

It was an understanding of basic physics. It can't be a good thing to block the vent of a volcano and introduce water to the hot magma. It is a personal understanding.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

It was an understanding of basic physics. It can't be a good thing to block the vent of a volcano and introduce water to the hot magma. It is a personal understanding.

When exactly was that suggestion made, and by whom? If the vent is NOT blacked then the volcano is actively erupting, if a vent is blocked it is not actively erupting. the water will boil off before reaching the magma.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

It was an understanding of basic physics. It can't be a good thing to block the vent of a volcano and introduce water to the hot magma. It is a personal understanding.

When exactly was that suggestion made, and by whom? If the vent is NOT blacked then the volcano is actively erupting, if a vent is blocked it is not actively erupting. the water will boil off before reaching the magma.

Some volcanoes are not blocked yet not actively erupting??? What do you mean by "actively erupting" anyway? There was a report in NZ that if sea water entered into the vent of White Island the explosion would be as powerful as an atomic bomb. I don't know if there would be a link to that but it was mentioned years back.
White Island - Volcano - GeoNet

So from that I take it that putting material into a volcano is not such a good idea.

This article estimates the destructive power of White Island:

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Pag...88/TR04-32.pdf

on page ix.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

It was an understanding of basic physics. It can't be a good thing to block the vent of a volcano and introduce water to the hot magma. It is a personal understanding.

When exactly was that suggestion made, and by whom? If the vent is NOT blacked then the volcano is actively erupting, if a vent is blocked it is not actively erupting. the water will boil off before reaching the magma.

Some volcanoes are not blocked yet not actively erupting??? What do you mean by "actively erupting" anyway? There was a report in NZ that if sea water entered into the vent of White Island the explosion would be as powerful as an atomic bomb. I don't know if there would be a link to that but it was mentioned years back.
White Island - Volcano - GeoNet

So from that I take it that putting material into a volcano is not such a good idea.

This article estimates the destructive power of White Island:

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Pag...88/TR04-32.pdf

on page ix.

Oh look, youve made your argument based on an active volcano, one that is currently erupting, with an open vent down to the magma chamber and which is disgorging material. That is active. Yellowstone is NOT active in that sense and water is not likely to reach the magma chamber, as evidenced by the myriad geysers in the park.

The assertion of an atomic bomb sounds VERY suspiciously like your typical media hype, and you should know very well to be leery of those Robbity.

The hazards report does discuss White island, but specifically in the context of Tsunami generation, NOT in the context of water contact with the vent.

Bore holes into volcanic magma chambers have been accomplished to produce energy in Iceland. The magma did not explode like a can of soda pop. There was another bore hole into a magma chamber in Hawaii that was used to study lava flows.

Geothermal energy from volcanic areas to meet our energy need is likely a better solution than solar panels and wind turbines, imo.

Wrong magma chamber, those are both surface pools in active eruptions, and not the undergound magma chamber that is being discussed ala Yellowstone.

So let me get this straight:

First: Due to the media's overdramatizing trying to prevent supervulcano eruptions is bollocks since they are for all we know not as devastating as they make them out to be as in: the world's gonna end through a rain of fire and ash for hunderets of years to come for most of the plant and animal life of the planet as if you're reading about the egyptic plagues in the bible.
Second: Due to the unclear nature of how a magma chamber in detail and the exact nature of the magma inside are composed, drilling holes into it is, again, bollocks because it's like playing the operation game blindfolded on a massive time bomb, which, hadn't you messed with it, wouldn't have gone off for at least another 50000 years or so.
Third: Letting the whole thing blow up in accordance of how nature intended it to, would probably do less damage than you fiddling around it with drills not knowing what the hell you're actually doing.
At least that's what I extracted from all the arguing.
Tell me if this should be a separate post but: could a supervolcano explosion's influences on the planet's condition be accurately predicted? I have to admit I'm still a novice at all these things and I just had to discover that the nature documentaries I put so much trust in earlier have become terribly doubtful in some of their claims. However there are, what, hundreds of things that could follow the eruption of a supervulcano as a consequence which could all play out differently depending sometimes only on the direction in which the wind blows?
Anyways somebody said something about subscriptions and actual scientific material followed by the words "for free"? I'd really appreciate a link.