Edit: don't take my word for it, apparently this is a popular myth
Read up on Yellowstone, for example -- AFAIK it's "due for a big one" but it blows up so infrequently and so catastrophically that there's no real plan other than "maybe think about not living in North America."
But hey, volcanic ash is a coolant for the climate -- a few well-placed eruptions could do some good, on a global scale (sorry about the locals)...
I looked it up, but according to this, it isn't due for a big one, it's merely media hyperbole.
>Although fascinating, the new findings do not imply increased geologic hazards at Yellowstone, and certainly do not increase the chances of a 'supereruption' in the near future. Contrary to some media reports, Yellowstone is not 'overdue' for a supereruption.
"large eruptions that took place 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 630,000 years ago"
I mean, it's not like it's due in a decade, but it is every 650,000-700,000 years, and it's been... 630,000 years.
Supervolcanoes are a phenomenon entirely different than human history has encountered. Krakatoa is a very small fraction of the ejecta of a supervolcano eruption.
What they are saying is we have no reason to think anything - there is effectively no data. Volcanos don’t accumulate magma and pressure at a constant, predictable rate. You should never say we are overdue for an eruption. There is no data to support that.
Read up on Yellowstone, for example -- AFAIK it's "due for a big one" but it blows up so infrequently and so catastrophically that there's no real plan other than "maybe think about not living in North America."
But hey, volcanic ash is a coolant for the climate -- a few well-placed eruptions could do some good, on a global scale (sorry about the locals)...