All depends on the size of the eruption. If it were a big eruption then it could bellow ash and smoke into the atmosphere and cause sunlight and heat to be blocked around the world making the earths temperature fall for a little while. Also it will send gasses like methane, carbon dioxide and sulpher into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse gas level and maybe contributing to global warming.
Very Unlikely
As Mount St. Helens is a volcano the slopes would be covered in layers of volcanic dust and lava.
The interior would consist of a lava pipe, a plug, and an underground magma chamber.
Mount St Helens was discovered by HMS Discovery, commanded by Commander George Vancouver on May 19th,1792. He named the mountain after the British diplomat, Alleyne Fitzherbert, 1st Baron St Helens, on October 20th 1792.In 1829, Hall J Kelly, started a campaign to rename the Cascade Range, (which Mount St Helens is part of) to the Presidents Range, each major mountain being named after a former president. In his plan Mount St Helens would have become Mount Washington.
Ash from Mount St. Helens eruption was detected in several states but "blanketed" would be an overstatement.
how long would it take to hike mount st Helens
Very Unlikely
As Mount St. Helens is a volcano the slopes would be covered in layers of volcanic dust and lava.
The interior would consist of a lava pipe, a plug, and an underground magma chamber.
Mount St Helens was discovered by HMS Discovery, commanded by Commander George Vancouver on May 19th,1792. He named the mountain after the British diplomat, Alleyne Fitzherbert, 1st Baron St Helens, on October 20th 1792.In 1829, Hall J Kelly, started a campaign to rename the Cascade Range, (which Mount St Helens is part of) to the Presidents Range, each major mountain being named after a former president. In his plan Mount St Helens would have become Mount Washington.
Yes, there are many trails for hiking, but I would be careful, since it is one of the most dangerous active volcanoes.
Ash from Mount St. Helens eruption was detected in several states but "blanketed" would be an overstatement.
The May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens was a strong enough eruption to cause minor global climate change. With the amount of ash and sulfur dioxide that the mountain was able to put into the upper atmosphere, although it is difficult to pinpoint how much the global temperature was actually effected by Mt. St. Helens, the scientists do know it happened. The reason it is hard to pinpoint what temperature change was directly caused by Mt. St. Helens is because there were several large eruptions around the same time period that almost certainly would have contributed to the temperature changes in the following years.
there were many warnings about mount St.Helen if they had an earthquake it would trigger the volcano to erupt causing the people to know if it will erupt or not
The impact certainly killed everything around for several miles; the impact would have been the equivalent of a sizeable nuclear explosion, without the radioactive fallout. Imagine living around Mount Saint Helens when it blew. It would have been MUCH worse than that.
An example of a "quiet" eruption would be the 1983-present eruption of Kilauea in Hawaii. A violent eruption would be the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens.
Its last eruption was in the 2000s so yes I would say so. It had a very big eruption in 1986. Just did a report on it. :)