SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A NASA thought experiment called, Defending Human Civilisation From Supervolcanic Eruptions, stated that a supervolcano eruption was more likely to happen in the future than an asteroid hitting the earth, according to the Daily Star. It said: “Supervolcanic eruptions occur more frequently than a large asteroid or comet impacts that would have a similarly catastrophic effect to human civilization.” Jet Propulsion Laboratory researchers found that collisions from asteroids which are more than 2km in diameter occurred “half as often as supervolcanic eruptions”.
[...]Yellowstone Caldera[*] is classed as a supervolcano which erupted 60,000 years ago and again 60,000 years before that.
Although there is no guarantee, if the volcano follows the same pattern then it is now due for another eruption.
Researchers have found that if a supervolcano like Yellowstone did erupt, then a “volcanic winter” would ensue which could surpass the “amount of stored food worldwide”.
People living on another continent would not be spared from the aftermath of a supervolcanic eruption.
[*] Wikipedia entry on the Yellowstone Caldera (aka Supervolcano).
The referenced NASA document — Defending Human Civilization From Supervolcanic Eruptions (pdf) — is less sensational; here is the abstract from the paper:
Large volcanic eruptions greater or equal to a magnitude 8 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (i.e., supervolcanic eruptions) eject >10 15 kg of ash and sulfate aerosols, sufficient to blanket sizeable fractions of continents and create a regional or global "volcanic winter." Such events could seriously reduce worldwide agricultural production for multiple years, causing mass famine. Supervolcanic eruptions occur more frequently than large asteroid or comet impacts that would have a similarly catastrophic effect to human civilization, especially now that many asteroid orbits have been mapped. We assess whether future supervolcanic eruptions could be dampened, delayed, or prevented by engineering solutions.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:24PM (2 children)
I recall reading, and the Wikipedia entry also says, that the most recent supervolcanic eruption from Yellowstone was about 630,000 years ago, not 60,000 years ago. There have been a number of smaller eruptions since then, and some may have been around 60,000 years ago. The article is blurring the facts and reasoning, sort of suggesting that the volcano might be on a 60,000 year cycle, and is therefore due, and that the next eruption could be super.
The most recent supervolcano eruptions are thought to be Toba, about 75,000 years ago, and the Oruanui Eruption about 26,500 years ago. Toba is speculated to have pushed humanity to the brink of extinction.
Anyway, yes, now that we know of such problems, and have the numbers and power to do many things, it would be folly not to take some action. I favor going all in with geothermal energy extraction. Pull enough heat out of Yellowstone, and it won't be able to erupt. I can only guess how much energy we're taking about. Enough to meet the energy needs of North America for a century?
(Score: 2) by Lester on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:19PM (1 child)
You are right, the cycle is 650,000±50,000 years.
Nevertheless, during the modern history (I mean 2000 years) there have been eruptions that caused volcanic winters that resulted in bad crops and famine. The minor Yelowstone eruption 60,000 ago was worse than any modern eruption, so you can expect several years of bad crops. Not the end of civilization but very tough years. In developed countries we are used to consider food for granted, but our world may change a lot if suddenly food prices skyrock and food is 80% of family budget.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 10 2019, @02:10PM
You're being optimistic - soaring prices still assumes the resources exist to be bought at any price. As I recall global food reserves are sufficient to last about six weeks, far smaller than they were in the past. (And the U.S. no longer has *any* strategic reserves) After those are consumed, then there won't be any more food available until the next crop is harvested. If we have just one year of global winter (winter, not just a lack of summer, which means *no* new crops), and ration existing reserves optimally (i.e., kill most people up front, rather than letting them eat through the reserves before they starve), then we're looking at around an 89% global death rate. If it lasts three years, then we're talking 96%.
And that's assuming optimal food allocation for maximum survival, whereas the reality, especially in the face of the fact that most food reserves are now in individual's pantries, is that we'll eat through almost all the reserves in the first few weeks, and then people will start dying in earnest. Even assuming 20% of reserves survive the first few months we're talking a 99% death rate. Cannibalism may help a little, but is not particularly effective in the long term - it takes too many bodies to feed one person for a year, and is especially problematic when almost everyone dies early on.
There will no doubt be survivors - the few lucky individuals, and those who have vast private reserves secreted away, or the resources to build, defend, and operate vast artificially lit greenhouses. But civilization as we know it will not survive.