Talk:Supervolcano
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. | ||
 |
Supervolcano is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about Natural disasters during the week starting 20 February 2006. |
[edit] Armageddon
So there's this link in the ext link section
which I'm going to remove. I thought I should be extremely specific about why. The linked article is a short intro to Super Volcanos as an engine of Armeggedon. This makes sense because it's on an Armeggedon website, where a brief and deliberately menacing article makes sense. But the text is not useful in the Encyclopedic sense of being useful to someone who wants to know the generally accepted understanding of what is a supervolcano is in the context of Geology. As an example, the linked article's description of what is a supervolcano provides such a broad definition that it fits pretty much every volcano in the Cascade Range. -- Cjensen 00:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I do not dispute the removal of this link. - Gilgamesh 03:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Supervolcano dramadoc probably needs a separate article fleshing out the cast and plot a bit. Lee M 00:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I agree with the author
That it is better suited to be listed on a armegeddon site for that topic, but in an encyclopedia I agree that it is more like and apart of the cascade ridge and should be listed here for that purpose. Armageddon could use links to this as maybe a future concern. That would include some other possible places. The conclusive proof that this will happen here again and the outcome from it is nonconclusive. So I agree with the author removing that article for this listing. I agree.
- Note: indenting paragraphs causes them to become boxed and unwrapped, causing lots of horizontal scrolling, as in this case (now fixed). Please avoid! And please sign posts if you're a member! Lee M 01:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Eruptions
"VEI-8 eruptions are not so great as to form mountains, but instead circular calderas, resulting from the downward collapse of land at the eruption site to fill emptied space in the magma chamber beneath." I'm not happy about this statement at all. It implies that if the eruption were somehow 'greater' they would form mountains. You don't get much 'greater' than a class of volcanic eruption STARTING at 1000km3 of ejecta. Mountains are formed through entirely different geological processes to these volcanos which leave large calderas. Even if the author were thinking of a volcanic cone or stratovolcano the 'greatness' of the eruption has nothing to do with it.
[edit] 1cm of ash?
I looked this up after my science teacher was discussing the subject with us today, and he said it was more likely to be 1m of ash covering North America, not 1cm. I'm not sure if this is accurate or not but he is the sort of person who knows what he's talking about. Antoher thing to add is that the volume of ash would be so great it would probably plunge the rest of the world into around 2 months of darkness. Can anyone verify this?
- "Even the US East Coast could be paralysed by 1cm of ash", according to the BBC website pages accompanying the programme. (I do find that a surprisingly low figure, though, given that according to the Lake Toba article, "although the (Toba) eruption took place in Indonesia, it deposited an ash layer approximately 15 cm (6 in) thick over the entire Indian subcontinent.") Vilĉjo 13:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If the eruption was a full scale one it would certainly bury vast areas around the eruption site with ash and lava hundereds of feet thick and most definitely cover a vast area of the United States with ash depths of about 1cm or more. Also if the eruption was large enough and enough sulfur was emitted into the atmopshere (say 2000-4000 megatons) then it could repeat the Lake Toba incident and create a millenium of freezing.
- As to the thickness, the largest Yellowstone eruptions did not cover all of North America with ash - the most distant confirmed ash from Yellowstone is, I believe, in the state of Mississippi where it is something less than an inch (<2 cm) thick. This is not to say that it would not have caused a problem all over the continent; it very likely would have. Geologyguy 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The 1 cm of ash quoted is NOT what the projected super eruption at Yellowstone is expected to deposit. 1 cm of ash will cause power cables to snap, electrical switchgear to short out and cause massive disruption to water supplies, electricity, aviation and many other things we take for granted. The projected Yellowstone super eruption will deposit ash and pyroclastics several tens of metres - and possibly hundreds of metres thick close to the site of the eruption, at several hundreds of km the thickness will still be measurable in metres or maybe tens of metres. When Mount St Helens exploded in a VEI 5 in May 1980, it deposited almost 15 m of ash and pyrclastics at the limits of the pyroclastic surges. I know because I was not only there that day but have done a lot of work with the USGS in respect of MSH. The Geologist (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)The Geologist
[edit] Bruneau-Jarbidge event
At present, the Bruneau-Jarbidge eruption is listed on this page as a VEI-8 volcanic event. It was brought to my attention that it wasn't listed in any publications as an event of that size. From the Bulletin of Volcanology, I found this:
| “ | Equally, the long-lived Yellowstone-Snake River Plain "hotspot" province (Smith and Braile 1994) has an extensive ash-fall tuff record suggesting that it has experienced many tens of eruptions with volumes in excess of 250 km³ over the past 16 Ma (Perkins and Nash 2001). Volumes of associated major ash-flow tuffs have, however, only been determined for deposits of the past 8 Ma (Morgan et al. 1984; Christiansen 2001). It is likely that several large volume eruptions associated with the earlier stages of the province, between 16 and 10 Ma, remain to be identified. | ” |
Is there any other information out there about these older eruptions? – Swid (talk | edits) 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I think Siberian super volcano should be mentioned too.
This a link on Discovery channel: [1]
- The article says "For large igneous province eruptions, see that article.". Supervolcano is a poorly defined term. -- Cjensen 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The volcano you refer to isn't actually a volcano - more a massive basaltic province - the Siberian Traps. Basalt is non-explosive, able to flow hundreds of km under the right conditions. What the Siberian Traps did was to load the atmosphere with CO2 and other noxious gases, pour huge volumes of molten lava onto the surface and is considered to have impacted upon the end of the Permian extinction.
Super eruptions which you are mixing up occur at explosive volcanoes because the magma is silicic rich. A simple experiment you and any teacher can do is to get several glasses and fill them with water, next get two or three bags of sugar. One glass leave alone, now add sugar into the glasses and stir the mixture.
It will become sweet and sticky, fill one glass with sugar until you cannot put anymore in - it will be so sticky that you cannot do much with it. Leave them covered for a few days away from any heat. Now slowly pour the glass with water on to a table and watch how far and easy the water flows, do the same with each glass in turn and you will find that as the sugar content increases the saturated liquid will flow less distances until you come to the glass that is full of wet sugar. Pour it out - and not how far it flows.
The glass that is almost entirely full of wet sugar is like the magma of a "super-volcano" and it has other properties too. Get a drinking straw and try and blow through the water only then through each of the glasses with sugar in them. It becomes more difficult to get the bubbles you have blown into the sugar to pass through - gas retention is the reason why magma explodes. The water only can be likened to basalt whilstthe almost 100% sugar can be likened to the magma in a super eruption. Sticky or viscous, holds great volumes of gas and therefore is able to be pressurised to the point of explosion.
Large Igneous Provinces therefore by definition are not so called "super volcanoes." The Geologist (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)The Geologist
[edit] Under water super volcanos?
Since 3/4 of the planet is covered by oceans, shouldn't there be super volcanos under the oceans? Is there any information about this? --Serge 18:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Most submarine volcanos are located away from continental crust, so the chemical composition is different and the lava tends to be basalt which is not prone to explosive eruption like Stratovolcanos are. So the best a hot spot can do is create an island like Hawaii. -- Cjensen 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of doomsday scenarios
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Supervolcano's gonna blow, kook theory or what?
http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/yellblow.htm I came here to fact check the link above. Given that it's on a kook conspiracy site, I'm assuming that it's all Art Bell stuff. Yellowstone is geologically active, fact. They've had to close some areas because of increased geologic activity, fact. Yellowstone is also overdue for an eruption in a geologic timeframe, fact. But in geologic time, anything from now to 50,000 years off is "soon." Should there be a section addressing this sort of thing? Gmuir 12:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Supervolcano under Czech Republic?
Some weeks ago I watched a documentation on German TV in which they said that a supervolcano was under the Czech Republic. Does anyone know whether this is true or not?
- Not, in terms of anything presently active. It is certainly possible that some major volcanic center was there at some time in the geologic past; they may have been referring to the Doupov Volcanic Complex which I believe is Eocene to Oligocene in age. But, I'm pretty sure there is no modern Yellowstone equivalent sitting under the Czech Republic waiting to blow; sleep comfortably. Cheers Geologyguy 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Verneshot?
Verneshot? 70.51.9.197 05:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Flying pig? --LiamE 10:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Toba vs Yellowstone
This is something I have seen on the web quite a bit now. There seems to be some confusion over which is a larger volcano, Toba or Yellowstone. If we were going off eruptions then really there's only one winner to my knowledge and that is Toba,however, if we were to go off magma chamber size then I have no idea which is bigger as I don't know the size and capacity (in Cubic Km) of Toba's Chamber. Does anybody have any knowledge on the size of the magma chamber beneath Toba ?. Wiki235 19:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Supervolcano locations
Nova, some unlisted here. JAF1970 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Most listed there don't fall into the 1000km3 plus category. --LiamE 10:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually seeing as 240 cubic miles is 1000 cubic km then most of them do fit into the VEI 8 category.Wiki235 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please cite the source for verification....
Though there is no well-defined minimum explosive size for a "supervolcano", there are at least two types of volcanic eruption that have been identified as supervolcanoes: massive eruptions and large igneous provinces.
...if there are any. Thanks!
Zxyggrhyn (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This sentence seems to have been damaged in the article... it currently reads "There are at least two types of volcanic eruption that have been identified as supervolcanoes: massive eruptions." (period) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.35.164 (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
