Yellowstone Lake has recently been exhibiting signs of rapid increases of
hydrothermal activity.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/monitoring.html

According to reports there is a bulge under Yellowstone Lake approx 2100
feet long, 1000 feet wide, and 100 feet high. Scientists believe there is
an increased chance of a major hydrothermal explosion.

My question for quantitative-minded meteorologists is this: If Yellowstone
Lake explodes and leaves a 2500 foot crater, venting the steam and carbon
dioxide from under the lake and evaporating some of the lake, will the
resulting sudden cloud cause any significant flooding or other weather
anomalies?

I look forward to the professional opinions based on assumptions of heat
energy released into the atmosphere, total volume of water evaporated and
then condensed, etc.

It would seem to me that a super heated cloud of 100% saturation would
quickly condense but also contain enough moisture to continue condensing for
hundreds if not thousands of miles.

Dave

David,

Yellowstone Lake has recently been exhibiting signs of rapid increases of
hydrothermal activity.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/monitoring.html

According to reports there is a bulge under Yellowstone Lake approx 2100
feet long, 1000 feet wide, and 100 feet high. Scientists believe there is
an increased chance of a major hydrothermal explosion.

I hope it will be covered (from a safe distance). Should be quite
spectacular to watch.

My question for quantitative-minded meteorologists is this: If Yellowstone
Lake explodes and leaves a 2500 foot crater, venting the steam and carbon
dioxide from under the lake and evaporating some of the lake, will the
resulting sudden cloud cause any significant flooding or other weather
anomalies?

I don't think so. It takes a Pinatubo-like scale eruption (or larger)
to have an appreciable effect on the weather (to such an extent that
one can speak of anomalies). There is a really mega scale eruption
looming under Yellowstone park which can take place "any moment",
within a geologic time frame that is (so it may also take a couple of
10.000-ends to 100.000 years to happen). But that is something quite
different.

Mazzel & broge / kind regards, Evert Wesker
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
http://come.to/wesker (redirect URL, no adv's), or
http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/

Hi Evert,

My question for quantitative-minded meteorologists is this: If
Yellowstone
Lake explodes and leaves a 2500 foot crater, venting the steam and carbon
dioxide from under the lake and evaporating some of the lake, will the
resulting sudden cloud cause any significant flooding or other weather
anomalies?

I don't think so. It takes a Pinatubo-like scale eruption (or larger)
to have an appreciable effect on the weather (to such an extent that
one can speak of anomalies).

If you dump a few million tons of high temperature water into the atmosphere
it HAS to have an effect on the weather, even if just within a few miles of
the hydrothermal explosion. The old adage, what goes up must come down,
applies.

I'm not suggesting the effect on the weather will be a world wide event, but
I'm not discounting it either. I'm just curious as to what immediate
effects there will be in the Midwest United States.

In a volcanic eruption the volcanic debris does not evaporate or condense.
A large hydrothermal explosion, however, has a completely different set of
mechanics to consider. And since evaporating and condensing water are key
elements of meteorology, it makes sense that a hydrothermal explosion should
be considered within the context of meteorology. Doesn't this make sense?

Dave

Dave

Bob Harrington wrote:


Anybody have a decent estimate on the volume of water in Yellowstone
lake as compared to the volume of water in a decent mid latitude
cyclonic system, or a tropical storm? Thinking the answer might be
surprising...


Don't know about Yellowstone lake, but here are some
back-of-the-envelope values for


1) a midlatitude cyclone:

average 30 mm of water (liquid + vapor) over an area of, say, 1000x1000
km is equivalent to 30 cubic km of liquid water, or as much as you would
find in a 17x17 km by 100 meter deep (on average) lake.

2) a typical isolated thunderstorm cell:

average of 60 mm of water in the column over an area of approximately
100 sq. km, or 6e6 cubic meters of water substance, equal to a 780 x 780
x 10 meter lake. That's still a lot of water to vaporize in a single
explosion (you'd need 1.5e16 joules of energy as a minimum, equivalent
to a 3.5 megaton hydrogen bomb).

Having said that, just because a convective cell *contains* that much
water mass doesn't mean you'd need to vaporize nearly that much to
*initiate* convection. Simply adding a few thousand joules/kg of latent
heat energy to the lowest km of the atmosphere over a 10x10 km area
would probably do the trick. Vaporizing a mere 100 tons of water
(requiring minimum energy input equivalent to around 60 tons of TNT)
would probably get you there unless the atmosphere was particularly stable.

Furthermore, if that 100 tons of liquid water is already superheated
(under pressure) to a sufficiently high temperature -- around 400-500
Celsius would do the trick I think, then no added energy is needed ..
all you have to do is relieve the pressure abruptly and you've got both
your hydrothermal explosion and, probably, a convective rainshower if
not a thunderstorm.

Fun with simple math....

- Grant

Grant wrote:
Bob Harrington wrote:


Anybody have a decent estimate on the volume of water in Yellowstone
lake as compared to the volume of water in a decent mid latitude
cyclonic system, or a tropical storm? Thinking the answer might be
surprising...


Don't know about Yellowstone lake, but here are some
back-of-the-envelope values for


1) a midlatitude cyclone:

average 30 mm of water (liquid + vapor) over an area of, say,
1000x1000
km is equivalent to 30 cubic km of liquid water, or as much as you
would find in a 17x17 km by 100 meter deep (on average) lake.

2) a typical isolated thunderstorm cell:

average of 60 mm of water in the column over an area of approximately
100 sq. km, or 6e6 cubic meters of water substance, equal to a 780 x
780
x 10 meter lake. That's still a lot of water to vaporize in a single
explosion (you'd need 1.5e16 joules of energy as a minimum, equivalent
to a 3.5 megaton hydrogen bomb).

Having said that, just because a convective cell *contains* that much
water mass doesn't mean you'd need to vaporize nearly that much to
*initiate* convection. Simply adding a few thousand joules/kg of
latent heat energy to the lowest km of the atmosphere over a 10x10 km
area
would probably do the trick. Vaporizing a mere 100 tons of water
(requiring minimum energy input equivalent to around 60 tons of TNT)
would probably get you there unless the atmosphere was particularly
stable.

Furthermore, if that 100 tons of liquid water is already superheated
(under pressure) to a sufficiently high temperature -- around 400-500
Celsius would do the trick I think, then no added energy is needed ..
all you have to do is relieve the pressure abruptly and you've got
both your hydrothermal explosion and, probably, a convective
rainshower if
not a thunderstorm.

Fun with simple math....

- Grant

Thanks! The brain cell is on vacation this week...