Any volcano experts know how what how bad it would be if the largest volcano in the world constantly spewed smoke at this rate for ~200 consecutive years?
Alright, I only have a bachelorâs in geology so I am not a volcanologist (yet) but given that Red Mountain is more the size of a supervolcano rather than a typical stratovolcano, and events like the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa (a single normal sized caldera) caused a global volcanic winter, wellâŚ
Take a look at the Permian-Triassic extinction event, also known as the Great Dying, caused by the eruption of the Siberian Traps. 57% of biological families, 62% of genera, 81% of marine species,and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species were wiped out.
Sooo global mass extinction. Yay!
We actually got a real life geologist to weigh in! That's not a volcanologist, but as a non-expert in both rocks and volcanoes I suspect rocks and volcanoes have some kind of connection. [citation needed]
Thanks for providing your educated look onto this! We are open to second opinions though, if there are more rock enthusiasts or even an actual volcanologist out there that can weigh in.
second geologist here: i doubt Red Mountain would create the effect seen from the Siberian Trapps for a few reasons: 1. Size. The Siberian Trapps are massive. The complex (including the direct volcanic rocks like basalt and the tuff and other volcanic rocks) cover an area about the size of Australia (7 million kilometers squared). Vvardenfell, which I'll assume to be mostly to entirely composed of volcanic material from Red Mountain itself (like the Hawaiian Islands) is much, much smaller. With the lore in mind (assuming the estimate of the distance between Mournhold and the main crater of Red Mountain being about 250 miles/400km), I'd say Vvardenfell is about 115,000km squared in terms of area (or 360*320km). This would make it roughly the size of Benin and a little bit bigger than Iceland. Iceland is also famous for its large basaltic to andesitic volcanoes which erupt more or less continuously, and have not ended the world yet.
2. Time. 200 years is a long time to us mortals, however in terms of geology it's basically no time at all. Whilst flood basalts can very dramatically change individual landscapes over a relatively short time interval (for example, see the most recent large eruptions in Hawaii), it took even the Siberian Trapps (which were creating massive flood basalt and tuff complexes) about 2 million years to form, according to current estimates. Even if we assume a similar amount of activity for Red Mountain, it'll probably be a while before any mass extinctions start.
3. Composition. As mentioned before, I believe Red Mountain is likely of a basaltic to andesitic composition, meaning it is silica-deficient. This means it has relatively low viscosity and is not prone to large, explosive eruptions (like that of Krakatoa). Clearly it is still capable of it and it has somewhat of a classic volcanic cone, so it's not entirely basaltic, but the point stands. This would also allow for it to erupt continuously - volcanoes with higher amounts of silica in their rock melt and thus more viscous melts have the explosive, occasional eruptions that volcanoes are so famous for because of the higher forces needed to erupt, whilst basaltic volcanoes can erupt continuously because the necessary forces for an eruption are lowered. 4. Volcanic Plume. The volcanic plume from Red Mountain appears to be undergoing smooth, laminar flow, and not the more turbulent flow that would be expected of a large, silicic volcanic eruption (that would create something like a pyroclastic flow, seen in the famous Mt St Helens eruption). This suggests the volcanic plume is largely made up of ash and water vapour, which are lighter and can rise further into the atmosphere. The plume also disperses relatively quickly into the cloud layer, suggesting it is made out of mostly water vapour and other small particulates. It wouldn't exactly be pleasant to breath in, and the fine particulate matter may contribute to lower temperatures, but it is unlikely that it will have a massive effect on the climate. In conclusion, it's Probably Fine. Vvardenfell is on the scale of Iceland in terms of size and volcanic activity and it hasn't yet killed us all yet.
I want to first say how delighted I am by this response, this is the kind of thing I live for.
Oh I'm not saying it's a direct comparison because the Siberian Traps were a massive volcanic complex, it was just pointing to a mass extinction event caused by a long-term volcanic winter. The eruption of Krakatoa caused a noticeable volcanic winter, dropping the temperature an average of 0.4 °C (0.72 °F), altered wind and rain patterns, and increased the planet's albedo - and that was just one single eruption in one year.
The size of Tamriel has always been inconclusive, that's why there's so much speculation on it. Depending on which lore you decide to take as fact, that estimate may or may not be accurate.
However, we have no real world analogies to a single volcanic complex the entire size of an island that at least resembles a single stratovolcano. The volcanoes of Iceland aren't one single cone, rather they are a series of much smaller complexes of stratovolcanoes, shield volcanoes, and most famously fissure eruptions (which themselves can deposit massive lava fields).
Even if you do take it as the scale of (roughly) Iceland, it is a single stratovolcano instead of a series of smaller complexes. Also Iceland's lava is Mid Ocean Ridge Basalt (with occasional rhyolitic eruptions) - Vvardenfell is continental, even if there is ocean inlet, so its magmatic composition would be different. It also can't be Ocean Island Basalt like island arc eruptions, which means it would have to be a continental eruption.
The problem is, again, we have no real-world analogy here. This is also a problem regarding its composition. And given the geology of Tamriel is rather difficult [stares at the mountain ranges] it's also difficult to figure out what its composition would be, especially based on its structure and location.
If we go off of some theories, Red Mountain would be a hot spot. Sprang up when Auri-el just tossed Lorkhan's heart there. And continental hot spots tend to be uh...rhyolitic. And also basaltic deeper down. HOWEVER. Again, no real world analogy. Because volcanoes of that size are large caldera complexes not one huge stratovolcano.
I could see you being right about it being basaltic to andesitic...if it were in the right spot, I would honestly probably put it as a basaltic andesite, which would nominally allow for some room both both eruption types. However, it's not on a volcanic arc as far as I know, unless you can find a place for subduction to be occurring.
Also regarding the volcanic plume, the island of Solstheim is half covered in ash raining down from Red Mountain still, and it is several hundred kilometers away at the very least, so it doesn't seem to be dispersing that quickly.
The foyada throw a loop into this too. They stretch all down Vvardenfell's slopes and practically to the coast. They are said to be places where Red Mountain's lava flows down, implying high viscosity (basaltic) magma...from something resembling a stratovolcano.
At this point I'm convinced the devs just wanted a cool big volcano and had no idea how they worked. Which unfortunately is extremely common. And now we have to try and figure out how it works
In conclusion: ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ but I had fun writing all this
