If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Simmering below the geysers and hot springs of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming is a gigantic reservoir of magma that someday could erupt. To find out how much ash such an explosion would generate, the U.S. Geological Survey gathered data and ran a simulation about the distribution of ash from prior supervolcano eruptions, including those that happened at Yellowstone 2.1 million, 1.3 million and 640,000 years ago. A January eruption lasting one month would bury nearby states in a meter or more of the thin, abrasive debris. It would also cast a blanket of at least a few millimeters over the entire U.S. and much of Canada—enough, according to the usgs, to damage airplanes and cars, shutting down transportation. A supervolcano has erupted somewhere on the planet every 100,000 years or so, but usgs experts say that current geologic activity at Yellowstone “provides no signs that a supereruption will occur in the near future.”
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
Thank you,
Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American
