Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_iyl349r wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

VonMises2 t1_iyl58nn wrote

I mean.. if you tell me it’s gonna blow tomorrow.. how much worse can this get?

28

New-Post-7586 t1_iyl5try wrote

Oh don’t worry, that’s just bonus magma

16

FriesWithThat t1_iyl7467 wrote

>Its most recent eruption came in the form of syrupy flows 70,000 years ago.

>Previous work at Yellowstone revealed two magma reservoirs: one of gloopy magma 3 miles to 10 miles below the surface, and a far more enormous store of runnier magma 12 miles to 30 miles down. It was thought that roughly 2 percent of the deeper reservoir and 5 percent to 15 percent of the shallower reservoir were made of melt.

These descriptions of viscosity are making me hungry.

25

Tumbleweed48 t1_iylg9nk wrote

Can someone please explain why that is not being used as a geothermal energy source?

Just move ten or fifteen miles away from the tourist attractions, sink a few injection wells, and generate enough steam to power most of the northwest and reduce the threat of an eruption at the same time.

It would beat the hell out of burning fossil fuels.

1

awidden t1_iyludux wrote

I don't understand this title...

How does an "estimate" finds more magma? An estimate is...well, an estimate, not a finding, really. Is it?

−3

CroatianBison t1_iym3a43 wrote

An estimate isn’t some guy pointing at the ground and throwing out a number. An estimate is a calculation based on observable data that yields an approximate result. If they receive new data or refine the calculations, the estimate will become more accurate and change.

5

e-wing t1_iymgozg wrote

For one, it’s in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming. It’s pretty much the least populated area in the country. There just aren’t enough people in that area to warrant a huge infrastructure project, and to connect it to the national grid and get power to more people would be a massive undertaking.

Second, it would not reduce the risk of eruption at all, and could increase the likelihood of unpredicted geothermal surface features. Yellowstone is one of the most seismically active areas in the country and much of it is very unpredictable.

Finally, it’s a National Park. We tend to not want to build power plants in National Parks, and it’s actually illegal. There is a law requires NPS to preserve geothermal features in National Parks. To power the entire northwest as you suggest would require a massive facility, and even though geothermal is “green energy” it would still have a huge and damaging footprint in the park. It would alter the landscape and destroy parts of one of the most beautiful and important geological places in the entire world.

17

e-wing t1_iymhh2p wrote

They used a new modeling technique with a supercomputer to analyze 20 years of continuous background seismic data to produce the most accurate ‘estimate’ of the magma reservoir ever produced. It’s an estimate because the resolution still isn’t perfect, and it’s an extremely complicated magmatic system. To definitively calculate something, you need to have definitive boundary conditions and that is pretty much impossible with something so huge and complex.

2

SirRockalotTDS t1_iyn5hhe wrote

Now you'll have to explain to me why it CAN'T wrrupt.

A lot of that solid is well over the melt temperature and could instantly turn into melt if the pressure was suddenly reduced. How are you sure that that wont happen?

−3

Ruthrfurd-the-stoned t1_iynwzyf wrote

The have a range called the Confidence Interval which has a certain percent likely hood the true value falls in that range (usually between 95-99.5%) so with new data that confidence interval has shifted higher

1

GeoGeoGeoGeo OP t1_iyo1hxi wrote

People have drilled directly into magma before (Hawaii in 2007? & Iceland 2009), and there has been no eruption for a couple of reasons:

(1) drill holes are too narrow to transmit the explosive force of a volcanic eruption. (It’s the equivalent of piercing a champagne cork with a pin rather than removing the entire cork at once.)

(2) Due to the small diameter of drill holes (typically <10 cm), the small amount of magma that could flow into the shaft would solidify long before reaching the surface

See Iceland Deep Drilling Project:The first well, IDDP-1, drilled into Magma for more information.

5

StandardSudden1283 t1_iyo7tm7 wrote

Volcanoes die all the time? Do you think every volcano that's ever existed is still going to erupt?

It's not a permanent fixture either. It's moved from California, thru Nevada and to its current position over millions of years.

>Although another catastrophic eruption at Yellowstone is possible, scientists are not convinced that one will ever happen.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt#:~:text=Although%20another%20catastrophic%20eruption%20at,caldera%20to%20feed%20an%20eruption.

4

raccoonsonbicycles t1_iyozg6q wrote

"Estimate" just means you don't know the exact amount.

you are pouring lemonade into a cup, look away, look back and its overflowing. You estimate there is more lemonade than before You don't have an exact amount other than "more" but you know it's more because the cup wasn't overflowing prior

You can do 4 reps on the bench press at 235lbs. You estimate your 1 rep max is 255lbs. You punched it in formulas to calculate an estimate. Your true 1rm might actually be 256lbs but your estimate is all you really needed to give your 1rm a shot.

In the Yellowstone case its a result of taking readings and analyzing those to get an estimate.

1

CrucifiedAsparagus t1_iypbt99 wrote

"Collapse organized human society" is a doomsday mentality. There are too many variables to conclusively decide what climate change will do in 5, 10, 50 years. Especially as nations move toward sustainable energy alternatives and humans collectively ease their carbon emissions through diversified consumer options, who knows what technology and human initiative to save ourselves will bring about. I'd rather live hopefully in a world that will end tomorrow than pessimistically in one that will last infinitely.

1