Over population/Global warming
14 Dec 2012, 10:38 pm
eric76 wrote:
Note that nothing there claims that the supervolcano at Yellowstone will erupt again, now or in the very distant future.
Ignorance is bliss apparently, are you a volcano specialist?
Did you ask for specific information to say Yellow stone will erupt? No.
We know Volcano's will erupt by increased activity, we haven't witnessed a super volcano erupt before, so we don't know exactly what to look for. Extensive research has found the magma chamber under Yellow stone, the ground doesn't rise on its own its pushed up by magma, like a hydrologic pump.
There will be a time when the force of the Magma gets to intense, the ground will give way to the pressure. Once the magma finds the way out all the gasses and magma blow out in a massive burst. Like if you shake a coke bottle whilst you have your finger on the top, and once you remove it, it explodes out in a huge burst of force.
Can you please elaborate on your reasoning? I can't quite understand why you have such an unshared view on Yellow stone, there's no science to suggest Yellow stone will never erupt. I don't think there's much point us furthering this conversation, you dismiss science completely with your own narrow logic.
forkful_of_soup
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 6 Aug 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 193
Location: United States
14 Dec 2012, 10:58 pm
UnvoicedMercy wrote:
"forkful_of_soup"
Says who? Source?
Please, I'm not an information library, research on your own time.
Says who? Where did you get this idea?
Says who? Source?
Please, I'm not an information library, research on your own time.
Says who? Where did you get this idea?
Idea's you ask? I formulated this 'idea' you speak of, with my own research, and first hand observations. How about you really dwell into Psychology, then you'll see as I do.
This discussion will be pointless, you'll defend what you believe is right without an open mind. I don't need to elaborate on my statements, I am open to change my formulation if you care to bring evidence to the table that'll tip the scales.
Pick apart my argument, look for my contradictions, look for my errors, and ultimately prove I'm wrong. If you do so I'll admit I'm incorrect, but currently all you've done is ask me questions.
To join in on what you started;
Why are you asking me where I got this idea?
Why does it matter who it came from?
Do you have your own information you'd wish to share?
Why did you only ask questions?
What's the point?
What were you planning?[/quote]
Why am I asking where you got this? Because you can't just make claims like that without any evidence to back it up. You claim you've done research, so cite your sources, otherwise it sounds like you're just making all this up. Why should I believe any damn thing you say? Are you an expert on global warming and overpopulation? How would I even know if you are? To me you're just some random person on the internet. And I DO do my own research, I want to know where you're getting yours.
_________________
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't saddle a duck.
15 Dec 2012, 12:07 am
UnvoicedMercy wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Note that nothing there claims that the supervolcano at Yellowstone will erupt again, now or in the very distant future.
Ignorance is bliss apparently, are you a volcano specialist?
Did you ask for specific information to say Yellow stone will erupt? No.
We know Volcano's will erupt by increased activity, we haven't witnessed a super volcano erupt before, so we don't know exactly what to look for. Extensive research has found the magma chamber under Yellow stone, the ground doesn't rise on its own its pushed up by magma, like a hydrologic pump.
There will be a time when the force of the Magma gets to intense, the ground will give way to the pressure. Once the magma finds the way out all the gasses and magma blow out in a massive burst. Like if you shake a coke bottle whilst you have your finger on the top, and once you remove it, it explodes out in a huge burst of force.
Can you please elaborate on your reasoning? I can't quite understand why you have such an unshared view on Yellow stone, there's no science to suggest Yellow stone will never erupt. I don't think there's much point us furthering this conversation, you dismiss science completely with your own narrow logic.
So you're watched a tv show on supervolcanoes and now you know much more than those who study them? If you actually read what the experts say about future supervolcano eruptions, they use the word "if" not "when" because they cannot say with any certainty that it will ever erupt again.
And they certainly cannot predict when it will erupt again if it does.
From what I understand, they consider it QUITE LIKELY to erupt again as a supervolcano at some time in the distant future and that the probability of an eruption in the next few thousand years is thought to be quite minimal. But they cannot say with certainty that it will erupt again as a supervolcano.
18 Dec 2012, 5:47 pm
eric76 wrote:
So you're watched a tv show on supervolcanoes and now you know much more than those who study them? If you actually read what the experts say about future supervolcano eruptions, they use the word "if" not "when" because they cannot say with any certainty that it will ever erupt again.
And they certainly cannot predict when it will erupt again if it does.
From what I understand, they consider it QUITE LIKELY to erupt again as a supervolcano at some time in the distant future and that the probability of an eruption in the next few thousand years is thought to be quite minimal. But they cannot say with certainty that it will erupt again as a supervolcano.
Don't try to make me look stupid when you can't even use correct grammar, its 'you've watched' not 'you're watched'. Do you study them? No. Actually most scientists say "its not if, its when". Do more research, a dead volcano no longer has a chamber filling with magma. Toba and Yellow stone both have magma filling the chambers, so you stand corrected.
You haven't contributed much to this debate, I've done the majority of the work. Unless you think we need to continue this discussion, I'd say its run its course.
18 Dec 2012, 6:19 pm
forkful_of_soup wrote:
Why am I asking where you got this? Because you can't just make claims like that without any evidence to back it up. You claim you've done research, so cite your sources, otherwise it sounds like you're just making all this up. Why should I believe any damn thing you say? Are you an expert on global warming and overpopulation? How would I even know if you are? To me you're just some random person on the internet. And I DO do my own research, I want to know where you're getting yours.
Ah that's where we differ drastically, I don't feel the need to prove anything. Whether you take it at face value or not, your verdict doesn't have an impact on me. I don't need to convert others to see the world as I do, you either do or you don't. Whether I'm legit or not, is a Dilemma you and others will inevitably face.
You trust in the words of many if it equals the same result, but quiver when one produces something you've not heard before. How trust worthy are people in general, that's what you need to ask yourself. December 21st 2012, was misconstrued by "internet scientists", yet many people believe in this conspiracy. Why, because we are easily fooled.
You have every right to question my research, but it doesn't matter what I can proof or disprove, all that matters is you trust and never differ from what you believe is right. There's a fine line between genius and insanity.
18 Dec 2012, 6:21 pm
UnvoicedMercy wrote:
eric76 wrote:
So you're watched a tv show on supervolcanoes and now you know much more than those who study them? If you actually read what the experts say about future supervolcano eruptions, they use the word "if" not "when" because they cannot say with any certainty that it will ever erupt again.
And they certainly cannot predict when it will erupt again if it does.
From what I understand, they consider it QUITE LIKELY to erupt again as a supervolcano at some time in the distant future and that the probability of an eruption in the next few thousand years is thought to be quite minimal. But they cannot say with certainty that it will erupt again as a supervolcano.
Don't try to make me look stupid when you can't even use correct grammar, its 'you've watched' not 'you're watched'. Do you study them? No. Actually most scientists say "its not if, its when". Do more research, a dead volcano no longer has a chamber filling with magma. Toba and Yellow stone both have magma filling the chambers, so you stand corrected.
You haven't contributed much to this debate, I've done the majority of the work. Unless you think we need to continue this discussion, I'd say its run its course.
Nobody said that there wouldn't be any volcanic activity. We could easily see a number of volcanic eruptions at Yellowstone of considerably less than supervolcano proportions. The question here is not whether or not there will be future volcanic eruptions but whether or not there will necessarily be future supervolcano eruption at Yellowstone.
Like I said, I understand that the scientists think it is very likely, but I have yet to read or hear of anyone who studies volcanoes at Yellowstone who has said that there will definitely be more supervolcano eruptions in the future in Yellowstone.
There is another possibility of which you may not be aware. The next such eruption from that hot spot could conceivably be a million or more years in the future after the plate has moved and Yellowstone is no longer above the hot spot.
For what it's worth, trying to claim you are right because of a minor grammar error on my part is decidedly childish and makes you look quite silly indeed, even sillier than you already appear to be from your apparent state of panic.
18 Dec 2012, 6:33 pm
[quote="eric76"
Indeed it does, but you chose that route when you implied I'm an idiot that's only ever watched one volcano documentary...... That was a deliberate attempt to discredit my debate, so don't play 'innocent'.
Yes I'm aware of that, but none of us will be alive then so its all theoretical.
18 Dec 2012, 9:51 pm
I've had a few extra minutes available and did some simple Google searches on the subject of the supervolcano at Yellowstone.
Naturally, the Huffington Post is about the least like place for anything scientific, but at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/yellowstone-supervolcano-eruption-unlikely_n_1569214.html:
Quote:
Yellowstone's last full-scale outburst occurred 640,000 years ago, and the ones before that occurred 1.3 million and 2.1 million years ago — but each of these events was a tad smaller than the one before it. This geologic hotspot could be growing cold. Or it might have one last hurrah.
I assume that they got that information from some reasonably reliable source.
From a little better source of information, National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/09/120920-yellowstone-supervolcano-prediction-volcanoes-science-environment/, we see that there is no sign of an eruption in the foreseeable future:
Quote:
Does this relatively fast-moving magma suggest Yellowstone could soon have more eruptions?
"It is not an imminent hazard," Girard said. "Every study has concluded that there is no magma that is ready to erupt within any foreseeable future."
"It is not an imminent hazard," Girard said. "Every study has concluded that there is no magma that is ready to erupt within any foreseeable future."
About the same from http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/researchers-ponder-whats-next-in-volcanic-yellowstone/:
Quote:
The good news is that there's no indication that more eruptions are likely to be on the way. The magma reservoir that starts 10-20km down appears to be only partially melted, at about 5-15 percent molten material. Some areas have more shallow extensions and/or increased melt, but the maximum appears to be about 30 percent, and, the authors note, "Such melt fractions are usually too low for magma to be eruptible." So, unless there's a major influx of heat or molten material, Yellowstone should remain in its current, semi-quiescent state.
Here is a little more to the point that smaller non-supervolcano eruptions are more likely from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/the-future-at-yellowstone-caldera/:
Quote:
Now, this isn’t some speculative piece examining massive destruction caused by a supervolcano, but rather doing what geologist do best: trying to unlock the present (and future) but examining the past. Yes, Yellowstone caldera might have produced some very large eruptions* in its history, but those are actually anomalous compared to the multitude of smaller eruptions that have occurred over the last few million years within the caldera (really multiple caldera) bounds. So, what might expect next and why isn’t it a massive eruption?
...
Just because Yellowstone has produced three very large eruptions over the last 2.2 million years doesn’t mean that you should expect such an eruption. The caldera system has had plenty of smaller, dome-forming or explosive eruptions in the intervening years (and since the last caldera-forming eruption; see above), so in terms of the likeliest events, that is what to expect. In the paper by Guillarme Girard and John Stix in GSA Today, they suggest that the likeliest events to happen at Yellowstone in the near future are small, dome-forming eruptions or phreato-magmatic (water-influenced) explosions that follow pre-existing faults in the caldera, especially along the western rim. In fact, another study by Christensen and others (2007) showed that probabilistically, another caldera-forming eruption is the least likely scenario for future activity at Yellowstone.
If you look at the activity since the last very large eruption (the Lava Creek Tuff at ~640,000 years ago), a lot has happened. A multitude of smaller explosion and lava flows have occurred and between 174,000 and 70,000 years ago, at least 600 km3 of rhyolite lavas have erupted in what is called the Central Plateau. These magma are genetically related to the Lava Creek rhyolite, but not the same magma (as borne out by their isotopic composition). The reservoir under Yellowstone, based on a multiple of geophysical measures, is ~10-16 km below the surface and is likely only 5-15% molten (the rest being crystals – the classic “crystal mush”). Two lobes extend off the body and reach as shallow as 6 km below the surface, but again, are likely less than 30% molten. Although this is hotly debated, the lowest percentage of melt needed to allow for an eruption from a crystal mush is estimated to be ~40-45%, so none of this magma appears to be, currently, “eruptible”.
...
Just because you won’t see a no-hitter when you should up for the ballgame doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting. The same can be said for Yellowstone – even if a caldera-forming eruption isn’t likely, there is plenty to keep us entertained (and not panicking).
...
Just because Yellowstone has produced three very large eruptions over the last 2.2 million years doesn’t mean that you should expect such an eruption. The caldera system has had plenty of smaller, dome-forming or explosive eruptions in the intervening years (and since the last caldera-forming eruption; see above), so in terms of the likeliest events, that is what to expect. In the paper by Guillarme Girard and John Stix in GSA Today, they suggest that the likeliest events to happen at Yellowstone in the near future are small, dome-forming eruptions or phreato-magmatic (water-influenced) explosions that follow pre-existing faults in the caldera, especially along the western rim. In fact, another study by Christensen and others (2007) showed that probabilistically, another caldera-forming eruption is the least likely scenario for future activity at Yellowstone.
If you look at the activity since the last very large eruption (the Lava Creek Tuff at ~640,000 years ago), a lot has happened. A multitude of smaller explosion and lava flows have occurred and between 174,000 and 70,000 years ago, at least 600 km3 of rhyolite lavas have erupted in what is called the Central Plateau. These magma are genetically related to the Lava Creek rhyolite, but not the same magma (as borne out by their isotopic composition). The reservoir under Yellowstone, based on a multiple of geophysical measures, is ~10-16 km below the surface and is likely only 5-15% molten (the rest being crystals – the classic “crystal mush”). Two lobes extend off the body and reach as shallow as 6 km below the surface, but again, are likely less than 30% molten. Although this is hotly debated, the lowest percentage of melt needed to allow for an eruption from a crystal mush is estimated to be ~40-45%, so none of this magma appears to be, currently, “eruptible”.
...
Just because you won’t see a no-hitter when you should up for the ballgame doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting. The same can be said for Yellowstone – even if a caldera-forming eruption isn’t likely, there is plenty to keep us entertained (and not panicking).
And note the endnote on the story:
Quote:
I think I’ve decided to refer to what most in the media call “supervolcanoes” or “supereruptions” as very large eruptions. The idea is that a volcano is a “supervolcano” if it produces a so-called “supereruption”. However, this is, by no means, an indication that it will or can produce one again.
Note that the author of this is not a reporter, but a professor named Erik Klemetti. From the sidebar:
Quote:
Erik Klemetti is an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University. His passion in geology is volcanoes, and he has studied them all over the world.
Hmmm. An actual researcher into volcanoes who said that another supervocano eruption at Yellowstone is not a sure thing!
Another article http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/researchers-ponder-whats-next-in-volcanic-yellowstone/:
Quote:
A large fraction of the national park, including most of Yellowstone Lake, sits inside an ancient volcanic caldera, formed when a magma chamber blew its roof off about 640,000 years ago, releasing approximately 1,000 cubic kilometers of material in the process. An even larger eruption, about twice the size, occurred about 2 million years ago.
But volcanic activity isn't limited to these super-eruptions. The new paper reviews evidence that between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago, there were a number of smaller eruptions that would still be very significant from the perspective of anyone near Yellowstone at the time they happened. Four of these involved large flows of lava, and two others saw pyroclastic flows, mixtures of hot gas and ash. Large lava flows have also erupted between 174,000 and 70,000 years ago.
But volcanic activity isn't limited to these super-eruptions. The new paper reviews evidence that between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago, there were a number of smaller eruptions that would still be very significant from the perspective of anyone near Yellowstone at the time they happened. Four of these involved large flows of lava, and two others saw pyroclastic flows, mixtures of hot gas and ash. Large lava flows have also erupted between 174,000 and 70,000 years ago.
From the USGS, http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/yellowstone_sub_page_50.html:
Quote:
What type of eruption will occur if Yellowstone erupts again?
Yellowstone's volcanic and hydrothermal history suggests the potential for various kinds of eruptions in the future. The likelihood of a certain type of eruption occurring in the future can be judged by how often eruptions have occurred in the past.
* The most likely type of eruption would not be volcanic but, rather, hydrothermal. This type of small, but still explosive eruption can occur from shallow reservoirs of steam or hot water rather than molten rock. These reservoirs are the sources of Yellowstone's famous geysers, hot springs, and fumaroles. Such explosions could blast out shallow craters more than a kilometer wide; as has occurred in the northern Yellowstone Lake Basin, including Mary Bay and nearby Turbid Lake and Indian Pond, and in western Yellowstone National Park north of Old Faithful. Each of these craters was produced by steam blasts within the past few thousand years.
* The most likely type of volcanic eruption at Yellowstone would produce lava flows of either rhyolite or basalt; rhyolitic lava eruptions could also include explosive phases that might produce significant volumes of volcanic ash and pumice. Such eruptions could range in size from smaller than the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens through much larger than the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption.
* The least likely but worst-case volcanic eruption at Yellowstone would be another explosive caldera-forming eruption such as those that occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago. However, the probability of such an eruption in any given century or millennium is exceedingly low- much lower than the smaller eruptions mentioned above.
Yellowstone's volcanic and hydrothermal history suggests the potential for various kinds of eruptions in the future. The likelihood of a certain type of eruption occurring in the future can be judged by how often eruptions have occurred in the past.
* The most likely type of eruption would not be volcanic but, rather, hydrothermal. This type of small, but still explosive eruption can occur from shallow reservoirs of steam or hot water rather than molten rock. These reservoirs are the sources of Yellowstone's famous geysers, hot springs, and fumaroles. Such explosions could blast out shallow craters more than a kilometer wide; as has occurred in the northern Yellowstone Lake Basin, including Mary Bay and nearby Turbid Lake and Indian Pond, and in western Yellowstone National Park north of Old Faithful. Each of these craters was produced by steam blasts within the past few thousand years.
* The most likely type of volcanic eruption at Yellowstone would produce lava flows of either rhyolite or basalt; rhyolitic lava eruptions could also include explosive phases that might produce significant volumes of volcanic ash and pumice. Such eruptions could range in size from smaller than the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens through much larger than the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption.
* The least likely but worst-case volcanic eruption at Yellowstone would be another explosive caldera-forming eruption such as those that occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago. However, the probability of such an eruption in any given century or millennium is exceedingly low- much lower than the smaller eruptions mentioned above.
More from the USGS, http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/yellowstone_sub_page_49.html:
Quote:
QUESTION: What is the chance of another catastrophic volcanic eruption at Yellowstone?
ANSWER: Although it is possible, scientists are not convinced that there will ever be another catastrophic eruption at Yellowstone. Given Yellowstone's past history, the yearly probability of another caldera-forming eruption could be calculated as 1 in 730,000 or 0.00014%. However, this number is based simply on averaging the two intervals between the three major past eruptions at Yellowstone — this is hardly enough to make a critical judgment. This probability is roughly similar to that of a large (1 kilometer) asteroid hitting the Earth. Moreover, catastrophic geologic events are neither regular nor predictable.
ANSWER: Although it is possible, scientists are not convinced that there will ever be another catastrophic eruption at Yellowstone. Given Yellowstone's past history, the yearly probability of another caldera-forming eruption could be calculated as 1 in 730,000 or 0.00014%. However, this number is based simply on averaging the two intervals between the three major past eruptions at Yellowstone — this is hardly enough to make a critical judgment. This probability is roughly similar to that of a large (1 kilometer) asteroid hitting the Earth. Moreover, catastrophic geologic events are neither regular nor predictable.
More from the UCGS at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3024/:
Quote:
If another large caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, its effects would be worldwide. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gases into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate. Fortunately, the Yellowstone volcanic system shows no signs that it is headed toward such an eruption. The probability of a large caldera-forming eruption within the next few thousand years is exceedingly low.
...
Today, most of the landforms within the Yellowstone Caldera reflect the shapes of these young lava flows. Cliffs surrounding the Upper Geyser Basin near Old Faithful Geyser are the cooled steep flow fronts of once-slow-moving rhyolite lavas. Some narrow ridges and valleys on the Canyon-Norris road are corrugations on the surface of a 110,000-year-old rhyolite flow. These roughly concentric ridges formed as the thick, pasty lava slowly oozed northeastward, wrinkling its surface. Within the caldera, rivers and streams commonly occupy the gaps between individual lava flows, and springs emerge at the edges of flows.
Any renewed volcanic activity at Yellowstone would most likely take the form of such mainly nonexplosive lava eruptions. An eruption of lava could cause widespread havoc in the park, including fires and the loss of roads and facilities, but more distant areas would probably remain largely unaffected.
...
Today, most of the landforms within the Yellowstone Caldera reflect the shapes of these young lava flows. Cliffs surrounding the Upper Geyser Basin near Old Faithful Geyser are the cooled steep flow fronts of once-slow-moving rhyolite lavas. Some narrow ridges and valleys on the Canyon-Norris road are corrugations on the surface of a 110,000-year-old rhyolite flow. These roughly concentric ridges formed as the thick, pasty lava slowly oozed northeastward, wrinkling its surface. Within the caldera, rivers and streams commonly occupy the gaps between individual lava flows, and springs emerge at the edges of flows.
Any renewed volcanic activity at Yellowstone would most likely take the form of such mainly nonexplosive lava eruptions. An eruption of lava could cause widespread havoc in the park, including fires and the loss of roads and facilities, but more distant areas would probably remain largely unaffected.
It seems to me that my limited understanding of what the experts are saying is pretty much correct except that "very likely" may be much too high:
eric76 wrote:
Nobody said that there wouldn't be any volcanic activity. We could easily see a number of volcanic eruptions at Yellowstone of considerably less than supervolcano proportions. The question here is not whether or not there will be future volcanic eruptions but whether or not there will necessarily be future supervolcano eruption at Yellowstone.
Like I said, I understand that the scientists think it is very likely, but I have yet to read or hear of anyone who studies volcanoes at Yellowstone who has said that there will definitely be more supervolcano eruptions in the future in Yellowstone.
Like I said, I understand that the scientists think it is very likely, but I have yet to read or hear of anyone who studies volcanoes at Yellowstone who has said that there will definitely be more supervolcano eruptions in the future in Yellowstone.
They certainly don't seem to believe that the probability of another supervolcano eruption at Yellowstone is at all definite.
28 Dec 2012, 4:08 pm
[quote="eric76"]
Wow you went through a lot of effort for nothing; I breezed through some of it, but usually little is more and more is less. This debate cant be won, no one knows for certain its all assumptions and theory's. Not hard facts, as of today we don't know how to detect a super eruption or what to look for to indicate a super eruption.
Therefore you can post all you wish to post, it wont change the outcome. I've already said this is a dead end topic no one can win, yet you persist on furthering a pointless argument. Ying and Yang comes to mind.
Sure I could continue by plagiarising, but I've better things to do then argue something no one can prove. Until hard evidence befalls one of us this is a pointless discussion only going around in circles.
Good day
28 Dec 2012, 4:44 pm
UnvoicedMercy wrote:
Wow you went through a lot of effort for nothing; I breezed through some of it, but usually little is more and more is less. This debate cant be won, no one knows for certain its all assumptions and theory's. Not hard facts, as of today we don't know how to detect a super eruption or what to look for to indicate a super eruption.
Therefore you can post all you wish to post, it wont change the outcome. I've already said this is a dead end topic no one can win, yet you persist on furthering a pointless argument. Ying and Yang comes to mind.
Sure I could continue by plagiarising, but I've better things to do then argue something no one can prove. Until hard evidence befalls one of us this is a pointless discussion only going around in circles.
Good day
Therefore you can post all you wish to post, it wont change the outcome. I've already said this is a dead end topic no one can win, yet you persist on furthering a pointless argument. Ying and Yang comes to mind.
Sure I could continue by plagiarising, but I've better things to do then argue something no one can prove. Until hard evidence befalls one of us this is a pointless discussion only going around in circles.
Good day
I guess that if you don't wish to believe what the people who DO know what they are talking about say, then I did go to a lot of trouble for nothing. But the problem is with YOU, not ME.
Furthermore, you seem to imply that my response above was a case of plagiarism. I suggest that you get a dictionary and learn how to use it. There is NO PLAGIARISM there. Nowhere did I take credit for writing what someone else actually wrote. To the contrary, I provided links to everything. There is absolutely nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal about my posting that you seem to think is a case of plagiarism.
28 Dec 2012, 9:42 pm
[quote="eric76"]
Why do you always jump to bizarre conclusions? Did I state you were plagiarising?
I like the fact you went to great lengths, but this discussion is not worthwhile.
Sure there are Scientists that say "Yellowstone will never erupt again" and there are Scientists that say otherwise.
Have you ever thought they are only saying that to stop people panicking?
My argument was based on the fact I miss read you're earlier message, I thought you were stating 'Yellow stone will never erupt again'.
Its an interesting debate, I like the fact you made the effort to reply, there's limited research for my side of the debate. There's no winning this either, because in the end its opinion based, I cant reply to that message because I don't wish to spend hours formulating a reply to it. Why argue forever when we'll never see who's right? We can continue the Discussion if she blows her top within our life times, or new evidence comes to light.
Otherwise we'll be going around in circles forever. I cant say I'm overly interested in Yellow stone, volcano's are awesome and researching them is also interesting, but not enough is known about super eruptions to predict whether or not there will ever be one again. Maybe they don't act as normal volcano's at all, Toba I'm more interested in now. If you want to start discussing Toba instead Ill be happy to carry on talking.
28 Dec 2012, 10:16 pm
UnvoicedMercy wrote:
Why do you always jump to bizarre conclusions? Did I state you were plagiarising?
I like the fact you went to great lengths, but this discussion is not worthwhile.
Sure there are Scientists that say "Yellowstone will never erupt again" and there are Scientists that say otherwise.
I like the fact you went to great lengths, but this discussion is not worthwhile.
Sure there are Scientists that say "Yellowstone will never erupt again" and there are Scientists that say otherwise.
Find a real scientist who studies the issue who will claim that Yellowstone will erupt again as a supervolcano. You would be hard pressed to do so because scientists who study the issue know that it is anything but sure.
Quote:
Have you ever thought they are only saying that to stop people panicking?
That notion borders on conspiracy theories and has no credibility at all.
Quote:
My argument was based on the fact I miss read you're earlier message, I thought you were stating 'Yellow stone will never erupt again'.
Just that it may never erupt again as a supervolcano. I figured there was a high chance that it would erupt again, but the experts on the issue don't seem to think that the chances are anywhere near as high as I thought.
28 Dec 2012, 10:23 pm
eric76 wrote:
UnvoicedMercy wrote:
Have you ever thought they are only saying that to stop people panicking?
That notion borders on conspiracy theories and has no credibility at all.
One other thing about this. Anyone who is going to panic about something that would be very unlikely to happen in the next thousand or ten thousand years if it ever happens again is going to panic regardless of what anyone says to assure them.
29 Dec 2012, 6:22 pm
[quote="eric76"]
You can't use you're own initiative? Its not my place to prove to you there will be another super eruption, why don't you prove to me they'll never be one again, maybe that'll give you some satisfaction.
Do you want to be that arrogant that you cant accept a truce?
As I've stated all your evidence is only theoretical, as is mine.
The facts remain;
Scientists know nothing of super eruptions, they cant predict there wont ever be one again, since they've never witnessed one.
They don't no what leads to a super eruption, they don't know how to predict if one is going to happen or not.
I feel like you aren't listening at all. You keep repeating the same thing over, and over without acknowledging the fact we know nothing about super eruptions.
Since we don't know enough about super eruptions, then we cant be 100% sure there will be one or not. Scientists predict its 'Unlikely' yet they haven't said " we know with 100% certainty there'll never be a super eruption from Yellow stone again. Have they?
Where's your hard evidence stating with 100% guarantee that there'll never be a super eruption again?
You seem to me the sort of person that has to win every debate, one that's too arrogant to admit they cant win. I've said to you "none of us can win this debate". Yet you reply and reply like you can win when its currently impossible to win.
I've tried reasoning with you, I've tried to end this pointless argument, but you are obsessed with continually replying.
You're smarter than this, if no one knows with a 100% guarantee whether something will happen or not, you cant win the argument. Its fairly obvious to me, which is why I've tried a few times to end it.
I've tried to show courtesy, but you come back with insults as usual. Breaking down my messages like you're determined to prove yourself as superior, but you lack the skills to accept you can't win. You remind me of a acquaintance of mine, wont ever accept defeat. I cant win, and neither can you.
When will this reality sink in?
30 Dec 2012, 12:03 am
UnvoicedMercy wrote:
Quote:
Scientists know nothing of super eruptions, they cant predict there wont ever be one again, since they've never witnessed one.
They don't no what leads to a super eruption, they don't know how to predict if one is going to happen or not.
They don't no what leads to a super eruption, they don't know how to predict if one is going to happen or not.
In reality, a super eruption is basically a very large eruption. Apparently, there is no real hard and fast rule as to what separates a volcanic eruption from that of a supervolcano. There is nothing magic about supervolcano eruptions. They are very big eruptions and we know a lot about eruptions, but obviously not everything.
Furthermore, the scientists are not predicting that there won't ever be another supervolcano eruption. Far from it. I can't imagine that anyone who studies supervolcanos would ever make such a claim.
What they are saying is that the supervolcano at Yellowstone may never erupt again as a supervolcano.
