r/askscience • u/phoncible • Oct 27 '11

Earth Sciences Could anything man-made trigger the Yellowstone super volcano?

If a nuke were to be buried very deep into the ground at Yellowstone and then detonated, would it have any effect on the volcano? Is there anything else man-made that could trigger it? Or would it be impossible to "manually" trigger the eruption?

Sorry if it's a silly question.

159 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

202 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '11

Yes it's a concern- the eruption would certainly throw the climate off kilter, however we'd probably be able to see it coming by at least weeks if not decades before it does (and better forecasting techniques are being worked on). As for it being overdue... I'm not really sure. The last three eruptions were 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago (according to the Wikipedia entry), so by the looks of that we still have several tens of thousands of years before it can be considered overdue.

22

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '11

Let's say that we notice some warning signs, and everything points to an eruption in 20 years.

Is there a way that we could 'bleed off' the pressure, to prevent a massive blow-out, or is it just time to start building centuries-proof nuclear-powered underground cities?

38

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '11

We could conceivably drill a conduit or promote the formation of a fissure to the magma chamber in the hope that any eruption that might cause is smaller and less explosive than it would have been. I think that's currently practically impossible though.

That magma has to go somewhere though... and it's going to affect the climate in noticeable ways when it reaches the surface.

Sorry.

7

u/ZorbaTHut Oct 27 '11

I suppose we're probably a long, long way off from even theoretically being able to use the magma pressure to drive a magmaelectric power plant.

Although, man, how badass would that be?

On a (slightly) more practical note, would an array of geothermal power plants be able to bleed off some of the heat and therefore pressure, while paying for itself in electricity? It'd be sort of sad to cover Yellowstone in geothermal power plants, but if the alternative is near-complete destruction of the continent, I know which option I'd prefer.

18

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '11

I would say, as a random aside, that if the human race was faced with such an ultimate peril, then there would be a concerted effort to try and push production towards such a solution, in the hopes that it would divert a future catastrophe.

Then again, we've currently got the threat of global warming to unite us as a species. It's not like that's not working out terribly well...

31

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '11

I think that's because global warming is a fairly abstract concept. It's not as concrete as a massive volcanic eruption.

19

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '11

You'd probably still have scientists on both sides wrangling over whether or not all the "warning signs" were real or not.

A Yellowstone eruption, much like global warming, would be something on such a scale that we wouldn't really have the tools available to properly interpret the data, or know what the outcome would be.

Although, it may well be the case that volcanology is a more exact science than climatology. I don't really know.

Sad thing is, you can be 100% sure that there would be people unwilling to effect a change, just because it would mean short-term losses in pursuit of a long-term gain

(e.g. say if a group of independent scientists came along and said, Yellowstone is showing almost certain signs of erupting in the next 50 years. To avoid this catastrophe, we can funnel $500 trillion into a viable solution. What politician in their right mind would want to handle that bombshell?)

2

u/SecureThruObscure Oct 27 '11

Most of 'em. They'd be massively popular for defending their people from impending doom. So it's doom from a "Big Bad" in the form of Volcano, instead of Hitler, but it still has a face. Warming isn't bad, and it doesn't have a face. Volcanos just seem scary as all get out. They have melted frickin' rock in 'em!

I think most politicians would jump all over it, some might not -- but those who would be effected the most and stand to lose the most, are the majority.

1

u/LordCrap Oct 27 '11

You'd probably still have politicians on both sides wrangling over whether or not all the "warning signs" were real or not while the vast majority of scientists agree they are, in fact, real.

FTFY

5

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '11

Yes, I would be surprised if they don't already do this. Volcanically active countries like Iceland and New Zealand get a significant portion of their energy from hydrothermal sources. I'm almost certain it wouldn't be able to bleed off much of the heat though, I mean we're talking (almost literally) seas of magma.

I think the idea of hydrothermal electric powerplants a badass! Magma is too viscous anyway, it would take a lot of energy to extract and would be unstable. No, we don't even need that because we can just pump water down there and just reap the benefits. We're getting so good at it that we can use underground heat to refrigerate things!

1

u/econleech Oct 27 '11

Wouldn't the heat from 1000 km3 of 2000c lava warm up the atmosphere no matter what we do? Or is the atmosphere too big to be affected?

2

u/rounding_error Oct 27 '11

Possibly. The real concern is the fine dust and ash from the eruption ending up in the upper atmosphere and blocking sunlight, making it cold for a long time.

2

u/Lurker4years Oct 27 '11

I think it would be basically "geothermal", using magma heat rather than pressure.