What was the worst Natural Disaster in U.S history?

[Audrey2Katrina]

Yep, that's also very true. But I would consider the Canary Island Tsunami, along with a devastating asteroid or massive solar flare or whatever in the category of a global disaster.

That is very true; but I've seen models wherein the subsequent mega-Tsunami would/could reach the eastern US with unbelievable catastrophic results--hence a cataclysmic natural disaster here in the U.S. The same could be said of the Yellowstone caldera blowing its lid again... there's little doubt the catastrophic results would be global as well as in the U.S. where one cringes at the thought of potential devastation. Discovery Science did a very interesting special on Yellowstone.

A2K

[milankovitch]

Yep, that's also very true. But I would consider the Canary Island Tsunami, along with a devastating asteroid or massive solar flare or whatever in the category of a global disaster.

That is very true; but I've seen models wherein the subsequent mega-Tsunami would/could reach the eastern US with unbelievable catastrophic results--hence a cataclysmic natural disaster here in the U.S. The same could be said of the Yellowstone caldera blowing its lid again... there's little doubt the catastrophic results would be global as well as in the U.S. where one cringes at the thought of potential devastation. Discovery Science did a very interesting special on Yellowstone.

A2K

I don't know about the Cumbre Vieja hazard the more I look into it the flakier it seems. Missrepresentation of the La Palma's internal structure, missrepresentation of the last shift (the whole west flank didn't shift, if it did the costal towns on the west flank would know ). Not to say it isn't possible for "megatsunamis" to occur. (rant over)

Bigger, more likely events would be a Tokyo earthquake (could cause upwards of a trillion in damage), a Tehran earthquake (massive loss of life), and a large volcanic eruption (Tambora sized) eruption in a populated part of Indonesia.

[Derek Ortt]

Yellowstone would be a world wide disaster

Last time one of those went off, the GLOBAL survival rate was a whopping 1%

Yellowstone puts everything else to shame

[gatorcane]

Yes, Derek good point.

Exerpt:
The supervolcano has had three catastrophic eruptions in the last 2.1 million years, Smith notes. The most recent, 640,000 years ago, blanketed more than half of the United States with toxic ash and formed the caldera, or crater, that covers nearly 1,500 square miles of the park.

Read more about the Yellowstone disaster here:
http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005- ... pervolcano

[Jim Cantore]

Heres some that would basicly be beyond devestating

Global Blackout caused by a solar storm

Sypertyphoon in Hong Kong

F6 in Dallas

Cat 5 into NYC (unlikely at this point)

[Audrey2Katrina]

Yellowstone would be a world wide disaster

Last time one of those went off, the GLOBAL survival rate was a whopping 1%

Yellowstone puts everything else to shame

While I agree with your assessment that from a US standpoint Yellowstone would potentially be far and away the greatest, and definitely have global impact, I have to disagree with the 1% survival conclusion. The greatest mass extinction in Earth's history was the late-Permian, which dwarfed even the more famous late Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction in which the dinosaurs (among many other species) were wiped out. The Permian mass extinction took 90% of all living species, which means that even the greatest extinction in Earth's history didn't wipe out 99% of all life, and certainly none of the 3 known Yellowstone eruptions even remotely came close to any of the approximately 26 other mass extinctions. While we're discussing superlatives of catastrophes, theoretically, an asteroid colliding with Earth, such as occured in the Yucatan region approximately 65 million years ago would put even Yellowstone to shame. Fortunately, these are few and far between.

Okay... aside aside... I note while Katrina still holds a substantial lead, the poll has closed up somewhat--never was any doubt which two it'd ultimately be between.

A2K

[jasons2k]

Yellowstone would be a world wide disaster

Last time one of those went off, the GLOBAL survival rate was a whopping 1%

Yellowstone puts everything else to shame

No doubt there would be global effects but I haven't seen anything about Yellowstone having a global survival rate of 1%. Most estimates I have seen have a potential deathtoll in the millions and the most severe impacts are limited to the western US and Canada, but still a huge geographic area.

[zlaxier]

Study: Bay Area Quake Would Be Staggering By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer
58 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - If an earthquake like the one that devastated the city in 1906 struck today, the toll would be staggering: tens of thousands of buildings damaged and hundreds of people dead, according to a new study.

The report released Monday calculated that a repeat of that 7.9-magnitude temblor would cause 1,800 to 3,400 deaths, damage more than 90,000 buildings, displace as many as 250,000 households and result in $150 billion in damage.

"We already witnessed the effect of the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people from last year's hurricanes," said Bill Ellsworth, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park. "It would have huge social and economic effects on the entire country."

The study, "When the Big One Strikes Again," was released the day before the 100th anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. It was prepared for what is being billed as the biggest earthquake conference ever.

The three-day 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference, starting Tuesday in San Francisco, was expected to draw more than 2,500 scientists, engineers, government officials and emergency response professionals. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) and other politicians were scheduled to speak.

The conference is one of a long list of events being held around the Bay Area to commemorate the 1906 quake and promote earthquake preparedness. On Tuesday, survivors will lay wreaths at Lotta's Fountain in downtown San Francisco to mark the moment the temblor struck shortly after 5 a.m. 100 years ago.

The latest report, prepared by the engineering firm Charles Kircher & Associates in Mountain View, was commissioned by the earthquake conference's organizers: the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Seismological Society of America and California Governor's Office of Emergency Services.

Using computer models, the study estimated how a 1906-size earthquake would impact today's nine-county San Francisco Bay area, where the population has mushroomed to more than 7 million people.

The report found that a 7.9-magnitude quake would cause up to $34 billion in building-related losses in San Francisco, $28 billion in Santa Clara County, $26 billion in San Mateo County and $15 billion in Alameda County.

Most of the deaths would result from the collapse of old buildings made with unreinforced masonry or concrete, or structures not tied to their foundations, according to the report. Structures built after the 1970s are generally considered safe.

"We need to recognize the buildings that are the most dangerous and would cause the most loss of life," said conference chairman Chris Poland, chief executive officer at Degenkolb Engineers in San Francisco. "They need to be identified, then strengthened or replaced."

Estimates of the death toll from the 1906 quake and fire range from 478 to 6,000. In addition, 28,000 of San Francisco's 53,000 buildings were destroyed; 225,000 of San Francisco's nearly 400,000 residents were left homeless and estimated property damage was the equivalent of $8.2 billion in today's dollars.

Experts said the Bay Area has made a lot of progress strengthening buildings, roads and bridges since the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, but the study's findings indicate the region still has a lot of work to do.

"The Bay Area is probably better prepared than most urban areas for a natural disaster," Poland said. "But it's not prepared enough."

[Audrey2Katrina]

No doubt there would be global effects but I haven't seen anything about Yellowstone having a global survival rate of 1%. Most estimates I have seen have a potential deathtoll in the millions and the most severe impacts are limited to the western US and Canada, but still a huge geographic area.

Pretty much the same info I've read... devastating beyond belief; impact that would certainly have global implications but not in the order of a mass extinction.

BTW: Something about that name reminds me of the old Schlitz brewing company, any connection there?

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Study: Bay Area Quake Would Be Staggering By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer

We're beating a dead horse here, nothing there I'd disagree with, and nothing that "dwarfs" the Katrina devastation either... both horribly catastrophic.



Besides, with Yellowstone and meteors, we've gotten to far worse hypotheticals than either of those two.

And the race continues to tighten... interesting.

A2K

[jasons2k]

Hey A2K, sorry, I'm not connected to the brewery. It'd be nice though; if I were I'd be sitting on a beach in the Bahamas.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Hey A2K, sorry, I'm not connected to the brewery. It'd be nice though; if I were I'd be sitting on a beach in the Bahamas.

Yes you would..I think the thing that tipped me was, being a beer aficcionado I've read up on a lot of them, and it was a J. Schlitz who founded the company...lol... small world, ah well, nothing wrong with dreaming.

A2K

[Aslkahuna]

I think the 1% survival rate in the aftermath of a super eruption at Yellowstone (which the next one could or could not be) refers to humanoids based upon the as of yet still controversial study of the effects of Toba. Mega Tsunamis have occurred-the last one being in Lituya Bay Alaska in the 1950's was actually witnessed and there is evidence of 300m high ones in Hawai'i as well as a really big one in the Stone Age in Scandanavia down into Scotland. The former caused but debris flow avalanches off the slopes of the volcanoes there similar to what;s postulated for La Palma and the latter from an underwater debris flow avalanche. In essence, Supervolcanoes and Impacts are the two types of disasters which could result in the extinction or near extinction of our species (bad for us but probably good for the Planet and what life makes it through the gateway). Another thing that is overlooked in all of this is the fact that during the Holocene Period (current one) the Earth has had a remarkably stable climate system compared to the past where chaos ruled. Thus we have evolved to become used to a stable climate and would be hard pressed to muddle through if the climate reverted (naturally or otherwise) to the previous system characterised by wild swings-should be noted that such stable are in fact a hallmark of a chaotic system with some unknown threshold marking the point at which we will revert be it a point in time independent of anything else or a small change in the energy budget.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

I think the 1% survival rate in the aftermath of a super eruption at Yellowstone (which the next one could or could not be) refers to humanoids based upon the as of yet still controversial study of the effects of Toba.

I agree, and figured the same thing; but still feel the 99% mortality among humanoids to be an excessive overestimate. The Geological Society of the UK which is hardly non-alarmist (as they DO claim that supervolcanic blasts have the potential to ultimately cause the demise of people as high as billions) state that should a Toba-like event occur today, the deaths would likely be in the tens of millions and restricted to Southeast Asia region,--the after affects of weather related consequences and agricultural devastation would most certainly have an even greater affect; but hardly a 99% extinction--but what the hey... once you're talking about an event that could wipe out half (or more) of the "civilized world, you're talking truly an unprecedented cataclysm in human recorded history. The USGS has a FAQ page on the Yellowstone caldera as well, and pretty much restrict the "massive" devastation to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, with ash falls most markedly in areas of the Intermontane areas and Great Plains--climatological consequences lasting for at least a few years--to a decade, globally--again, still not on the order of magnitude of such a massive human near-extinction. Either way you want to look at it, the only "good" thing one can say is that the likelihood of this kind of event, is less than one in approx. 715,000 (USGS), and that of the potentially more catastrophic NEO impact even less...

Some things are just better off left not worrying too much about (unless you're a geologist/geophysicist/vulcanologist etc.)--as the chances are so remote within terms of a human lifetime, and there's just little to nothing one can do about them.

Here's to hoping any super eruptions are still at least tens of thousands of years away--maybe by then we'll be migrating out to the other celestial colonies!

A2K

[mel2]

i say Hurricane Katrina 2005 was one of them

[Derek Ortt]

the 1% survival rate was the survival rate of Toba, and the after effects

Remember, Tambora, a VEI 7, eliminated summer completely for the NH in 1815, casuing hundreds of thousands of deaths. Now, imagine no summer for 10 years, which is the result of a super eruption. Kiss food production good bye

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I agree with Derek ortt...Yellow stone is bigger then even toba. In the effects would send tons of dust/ash and other stuff into the Atmosphere up to 10 or so years. Not as bad as what a Astroid of over 1 1/2 mi wide(Global killer) but bad. In how weak we are today it could very well make us down to a few thousand lucky or unlucky people.


You will wish to have it blow up under you if you live through the blast.

[Audrey2Katrina]

the 1% survival rate was the survival rate of Toba, and the after effects

Remember, Tambora, a VEI 7, eliminated summer completely for the NH in 1815, casuing hundreds of thousands of deaths. Now, imagine no summer for 10 years, which is the result of a super eruption. Kiss food production good bye

I respect your opinion, Derek, but I equally respectfully disagree with the 1%, Even USGS estimates don't put it anywhere near that high. Of course all this is highly speculative as, thank God, no one in human collective history has recorded the actual affects.

From the USGS FAQ on the Yellowstone Caldera:

"QUESTION: What would happen if a "supervolcano" eruption occurred again at Yellowstone?
ANSWER: Such a giant eruption would have regional effects such as falling ash and short-term (years to decades) changes to global climate. The surrounding states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming would be affected, as well as other places in the United States and the world. Such eruptions usually form calderas, broad volcanic depressions created as the ground surface collapses as a result of withdrawal of partially molten rock (magma) below. Fortunately, the chances of this sort of eruption at Yellowstone are exceedingly small in the next few thousands of years. "

This article from the geological society of the United Kingdom goes into super eruptions in quite a bit of detail. Again, yes major cataclysmic death toll and after affects--food supplies, colder weather, and other major hardships, beyond question--but I sincerely doubt a 99% death toll even remotely plausible... JMHO, but I stand by it.


http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/pdfs/Super%20Eruptions.pdf

A2K

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

The volcano will spread dust/ash into the Atmopshere killing off the growing season for years. The year with out a summer was a very very small volcano next to this. This would most likely kill only about 50 million the blast its self. But the cloud would kill billions.

[Audrey2Katrina]

In how weak we are today it could very well make us down to a few thousand lucky or unlucky people. You will wish to have it blow up under you if you live through the blast.

I really doubt the few thousand out of a population of 6 1/2 billion to be realistic, with all due respect. The real dangers (globally) would be from the release of gasses such as flourine and sulphur, both of which would pose major hazards. The climate would be much colder for anywhere from a few years to a decade or two--a mini, ice-age being a real possibility, but that would not, IMO, kill off over 99% of the people, and to bring it down to mere thousands that would be 99.999% I find that extremely unlikely. Mass starvations, yes, crop failures, something of a return to Dark Ages--possible, but in no-way do I see 6.5 billion plus being killed off by such an eruption. Mankind has survived these in the past (and there's no bona-fide record to show percent fatalities) and will survive them, with great travail, in the future. (Assuming he lives/lasts long enough to see one!) Unquestionably the ultimate worst case would be the cataclysm produced by a NEO impact and subsequent ejecta of massive size striking dear old Earth. Hopefully, we'll never have to see who's right on this one.

A2K