super volcano?

[Derecho98]

Derecho did not say that the supervolcano idea was a bunch of crap, someone else did. Steve

Yes, and that person or persons needs to do some research, because they will find that supervolcanos are real and in fact have erupted in the past. There is alot of evidence that shows yellowstone erupted in the past and places as far away as nabraska were covered by feet of ash. This isn't just something someone pulled out of there A$$, this is the real deal and it could blow tomorrow or in a 100 years from now, we just don't know. Take st Helenes, find anyone who 2 weeks ago said it would blow a couple days ago and has the chance to do it again soon, but don't spend too long on the search because you won't find anyone.

[NWIASpotter]

Nobody was going against you when you said those things are real. I know I wasn't and several other members anyway. What a lot of people didn't appreciate was the fact that you called members of the board "stupid". Even if this was meant just for a certain member it still was not appropriate. In fact this is a personal attack when you look at it, and can result in a ban from this board if I am correct. So it would just be appreciated, even if you do not want to give an apology, that you at least not post something like that again. Thanks

[CaluWxBill]

I guess the last real devastating disaster was the 1909 Tunguska blast in Seberia. Had this Meteorite exploded over the US instead of a remote area like Siberia, what would have happened?

[Scorpion]

So basically everything in Yellowstone Natl gets thrown in the air???? Ahh watch out for flying grizzlies!!!

[Stormsfury]

Derecho did not say that the supervolcano idea was a bunch of crap, someone else did. Steve

Yes, and that person or persons needs to do some research, because they will find that supervolcanos are real and in fact have erupted in the past. There is alot of evidence that shows yellowstone erupted in the past and places as far away as nabraska were covered by feet of ash. This isn't just something someone pulled out of there A$$, this is the real deal and it could blow tomorrow or in a 100 years from now, we just don't know. Take st Helenes, find anyone who 2 weeks ago said it would blow a couple days ago and has the chance to do it again soon, but don't spend too long on the search because you won't find anyone.

I misunderstood your initial post .. sorry about that ...

SF

[Aquawind]

Well Said Nole...

[Aslkahuna]

The Siberian impact airburst blast was in 1908. It released about 20MT of energy or twice that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980. The effects in a US city would have been the same as a 20MT Thermonuclear blast (minus the radiation) and would have resulted in major devastation. That's why impactors of this size are referred to as City Busters. These big events DO happen, there is plenty of geological evidence to support their existence and to deny that fact is not wise. That being said, it is also true that they occur on very long and random timescales so no one can say that the next one is just around the corner simply because we have gone through an average repose period between events. Again, to say that eruptions at Long Valley or Yellowstone occur every 600000 years is the same as saying that Florida gets a major landfalling hurricane about every three years. The only thing normal about the frequency of occurence of natural events is that they do not occur at a normal frequency.

Steve

[Derecho98]

Anyone remember the thorey that Tesla's death ray was what caused the blast in 1908? pretty interesting stuff.

[Valkhorn]

Derecho,

So I guess this isn't anything like long-tracked tornadoes?

(highly obscure reference)

Yes super eruptions (Levels 7 and 8 on the VEI) do occur. However, level 7's are usually once every 10-100,000 years. Level 8's are much rarer. The three eruptions from Yellowstone were all level 7's or 8's. However, we're talking in the past two million years.

The chances of the eruption happening tomorrow? I don't think so. Next year? Nah. Next ten/hundred/thousand years? Probably not. It might happen in the next 100,000 years or so.

But it's not within our lifetime, and probably nothing to worry about at this time. Thankfully Yellowstone is in the least populated state in the country, and if something like this were to happen I'm sure we'd get plenty of warning signs (large earthquakes, etc.).

Derecho was just very rude in what he said. No one implied super eruptions were crap. They were implying that they were probably not within our time reference or our lifetime.

There's nothing stupid about this. I don't know you as a person, but I guarantee you sounding like a jerk will make you look like one.

Play fair. Be nice.

[Valkhorn]

This isn't just something someone pulled out of there A$$, this is the real deal and it could blow tomorrow or in a 100 years from now, we just don't know.

Actually this shows your lack of understanding on this topic. Mount St. Helens was a VEI of 5. Geologists DID expect an eruption that large to occur. However they did not anticipate how it would erupt. The entire north-flank blowing sideways was very improbable to accurately predict with the technology then. However, geologists did have a pretty firm idea that the mountain was going to blow.

Now a level 5 was a once in a few decades eruption. However Krakatoa I believe was a level 6 eruption, which meant it was 10 times as powerful. Remember, the VEI is a logarithmic scale. The strongest in recorded history was in the early 1800s in the same spot. That was a VEI of 7.

Our geological records easily indicate any VEI's of 7 or 8 (and even a few 5's and 6's) that occured in the recent past. We weren't there to record them, but the evidence for them exist in the geological strata.

Now we can obviously use our geologic past to help predict our geological future. Thankfully we've got plenty of time to prepare, and not too many people build on top of active volcanoes. People do build in active flood and hurricane zones, and as far as I'm concerned thats a much more pressing concern than Yellowstone.

[AirmaN]

[Aslkahuna]

Actually, people may not build on top of active volcanoes but they certainly do within the danger zones. A perefect example is Vesuvius where there is a town right on top of the ruins of Herculeanum-one of the towns buried in AD79. There are several more towns up close to Vesuvius and only one major road to get all of the people out. Volcanic soil is very fertile som people farm and live at the foot of volcanoes. As St. Helens with the lateral blast and the lahar from Nevado Del Ruiz proved, the effects of an eruption can extend well beyond 10km from the Mountain. In fact, the evacuation zone for Pinatubo was 20 km and even then the lahars extended well beyond that zone.

Steve

[NorthGaWeather]

Mega Tsunamis are for real as there is evidence for 1000 ft high tsunamis having occurred in Hawai'i in prehistoric times due to debris flow avalanches off of the unstable slopes of volcanoes there. But again, the occurrence is random. The last mega wave BTW occurred in Lituya Bay AK in 1958-it was some 400m (1300+ft) high. Fortunately, the mountains surrounding the Bay contained it for the most part-two eyewitnesses encountered the wave and miraculously lived to tell about it.

Steve

I've heard something very different. I've read studies from USC and watched a very interesting program on the discovery channel about tsunami's and the height was only estimated to be about 250-600 feet. According to some new findings, the wave was not nearly the 1,700 feet some seem to think. Large tsunamis' are extremely rare...ones found on Hawaii and other countries were generated from asteroids and meteors. This is what NOAA thinks atleast.

[Aslkahuna]

There is photographic proof of the trees being scoured out to a height of 1300 feet above the level of Lituya Bay not to mention the reports from surviving eyewitnesses. The prehistoric tsunamis in Hawai'i were not impact generated as there is plenty of geological evidence (landslide scars, underwater tallus deposits, wave action scars) in the islands to prove otherwise. We know that major impacts certainly DO cause very large tsunamis since we have found evidence from the Chixichilub impact tsunami in TX and Cuba.

Steve

[Valkhorn]

Scoured trees at 1300 feet does not imply a 1300 foot wave. It could simply mean that it was a 200-300 foot wave that was travelling at a very fast forward speed, and therefore made it up the mountain a good bit.

Water has inertia, don't you know

[Aslkahuna]

Ah, but you forget the eyewitness reports. Whatever the case (and I doubt that a 250 footer could run up another 1000 feet), the wave was plenty big.

Steve

[NorthGaWeather]

There is photographic proof of the trees being scoured out to a height of 1300 feet above the level of Lituya Bay not to mention the reports from surviving eyewitnesses. The prehistoric tsunamis in Hawai'i were not impact generated as there is plenty of geological evidence (landslide scars, underwater tallus deposits, wave action scars) in the islands to prove otherwise. We know that major impacts certainly DO cause very large tsunamis since we have found evidence from the Chixichilub impact tsunami in TX and Cuba.

Steve

Hey, I'm just telling you what they said. Besides witnesses often exaggerate what actually happened, especially during a life or death event. The actual height was around 500 feet entering the bay. The Hawaii tsunami discussion came from NOAA. I'm sure they have done plenty of research on the events also.

[Aslkahuna]

The Lituya Bay wave was generated inside the Bay so it would have been exiting the Bay. It was a true tsunami in the literal sense of the Japanese word which means "Harbor Wave". What it boils down to is that they only way to prove the existence of Mega Tsunamis is to have one and I think that's something we could forego in our lifetimes as a really unnecessary event.

Steve

[jimbo]

There is photographic proof of the trees being scoured out to a height of 1300 feet above the level of Lituya Bay not to mention the reports from surviving eyewitnesses. The prehistoric tsunamis in Hawai'i were not impact generated as there is plenty of geological evidence (landslide scars, underwater tallus deposits, wave action scars) in the islands to prove otherwise. We know that major impacts certainly DO cause very large tsunamis since we have found evidence from the Chixichilub impact tsunami in TX and Cuba.

Steve

Hey, I'm just telling you what they said. Besides witnesses often exaggerate what actually happened, especially during a life or death event. The actual height was around 500 feet entering the bay. The Hawaii tsunami discussion came from NOAA. I'm sure they have done plenty of research on the events also.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/tsunamis/alaska ... oseup.html

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF0/091.html

There many other sites if you simply 'google' the bay. I think they are saying that the splash height was pretty significant, but the actual wave may be somewhat less than 1300ft. But either way, I would agree that these type of diasters are life altering events for the folks in their path. This whole thread seems to have degenerated from the original plagaristic post.......kinda funny all things considered. My apologies for adding to it.

[SouthernWx]

that was a wonderful post but you forgot to mention about the moon turning to blood, and the horsemen guys....

Don't forget the hordes of locusts