Mount Rainier Volcano- Last Five Years Data Shows Increase in Earthquake Activity...

...And scientists are attributing it to an active hydrothermal system, not magma. Huh?



volcanoes.usgs.gov...

Over at the PNSN facebook page Jackie (a scientist) posts the following:

Spoiler alert: an increase in seismicity at Mt. Rainier is likely associated with hydrothermal fluids (i.e. hot water), not magma. Rainier still considered to be at background levels of activity.

However, what is confusing about this is that the hydrothermal system itself is heated by magma! So on one hand they attribute it to the hydrothermal system, but not the magma? Something just doesn't make sense here.

If earthquakes in the hydrothermal system have increased, which the data clearly shows, then how can you conveniently separate the two, when the two systems are irrevocably linked? It is the magma that heats the hydrothermal system! So if the there is increased earthquake activity in the hydrothermal system, doesn't that imply something has changed in the magmatic system to cause that increase in activity?

For years I have pointed out that Mt. Rainier is covered by several monster glaciers, which may impede scientist's ability to detect deeper magmatic movements below the volcano. It's like it has a muzzle on.

This explanation they give is not sufficient, in my opinion. But worse, it contradicts itself.

Now If for example you tried to attribute it to increased rainwater activity, then please someone show that there has been a corresponding five year increase in rainwater there to coincide and perhaps explain this increase in earthquake activity. Cause I'll be all ears.

Otherwise, I have no choice but to seriously question this scientific opinion, because it simply doesn't make sense.

And might I remind you- White Island in New Zealand just erupted with near ZERO prior warning of precursor seismicity. These beasts are sneaky.

So would this just be a case of magma movements, or pressure building? Also wouldn't a hydrothermal build up create a massive explosion, and isn't that what these types of volcanos are known for?

originally posted by: Guyfriday
So would this just be a case of magma movements, or pressure building? Also wouldn't a hydrothermal build up create a massive explosion, and isn't that what these types of volcanos are known for?

1) No one knows for sure.
2) It very well could, yes, and yes to the second part as well. Cascades volcanoes are very rhyolitic, the most explosive kind of magma.

I am about to go on audio on the SpectroNet live youtube feed to talk about this:
www.youtube.com...

Sorry for the quip:

The planet ... has a FEEVAH! (Thank you Al Gore.)

I honestly thought the same as you in all seriousness. Aren't hydrothermal systems heated by magma?

So, the mountain is out.

favorite view from Seattle there....
hey, the water heats up and melts some ice, ....the surface gets wetter dripping down into.....then bahmm the pressure lets off, the wet lets things on the top shift....blow the other side of the top off in an instant....pretty dang site to see from the road and in a jet tho, huh!

Update-

So this was the reply from Jackie:

The ground is always hot (even without shallow magma), so we don't need an increase in heat to have an active hydrothermal system. Given the lack of any other indication of unrest (e.g. changes in gas, ground deformation, etc), it's mostly likely that the change in hydrothermal activity is due to a change in where or how water is moving beneath the ground. This could be because some fractures opened up while others closed...it could be a flux of water due to increased precipitation (even if that was a while ago, since it takes time for water to flow through the ground).

And my answer to that is:
It could.... It could.... It could...

And it also could be a change in the magmatic system, which CAUSED that water to move differently or more rapidly in the ground, and thereby causing more seismicity.

But alas, may the volcanic Gods forbid EVER mentioning the magma as a potential culprit. Tends to scare away tourists!

If Mount Rainier blew big it would wipe out Seattle and reduce global warming...a win win in my book.

I saw Mt. Saint Helens the other day for the first time since she 'blew'.

What a SHOCK that was!

I grew up around Washington State and remember her as the mighty Queen in the distance.

Now? She's as comely as a 'free' couch someone left out on the lawn.

I'd love to see Rainier 'blow'...

Pretty selfish I know but at least that might get rid of Jay Inslee without anyone committing murder.

Over the last ten hours, at Rainier we have detected a sudden increase in micro seismicity, confirming on at least three stations. We're not sure what it is, and have asked over at PNSN. They may be ice quakes/glacier related, but I can't recall them ever coming in so fast like this. If you want to see, then check our spectros:
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Over the last ten hours, at Rainier we have detected a sudden increase in micro seismicity, confirming on at least three stations. We're not sure what it is, and have asked over at PNSN. They may be ice quakes/glacier related, but I can't recall them ever coming in so fast like this. If you want to see, then check our spectros:
www.youtube.com...

UPDATE:
PNSN has replied, and says they are most likely a glacial slip event. .... phew!

Had me worried there for minute.... Now the question is just how far that glacier gonna slip?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
If Mount Rainier blew big it would wipe out Seattle and reduce global warming...a win win in my book.

No, it would not. It might wipe out Orting, Renton, Buckley, Kent, and anything else in Rainier Valley.. And it would INCREASE global warming. The lahar flow (mud, basically) would flow no further north than the south end of Lake Washington. It would also flow down the Puyallup River to the Port of Tacoma. The prevailing winds are usually west to east, so the ash cloud would likely miss Seattle altogether. I would not want to be living in the Lake Tapps/Bonney Lake region if it blew, but if you were in the Space Needle at the time, you'd have a good front-row seat, but you'd be safe.

a reply to: schuyler

On the bright side the Tacoma Narrows bridge toll wouldn't be needed since it would then be a land bridge. I'm sure the goons in Olympia are already working on a way to make it a toll road though.

In all seriousness, glacial slippage due to hydro-thermic activity sounds bad, but could also just be due to typical glacial winter movement? Though the thought of a glacier setting on a pooling of water, and having minor quakes happening, would make me think twice about visiting the mountain.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: schuyler

On the bright side the Tacoma Narrows bridge toll wouldn't be needed since it would then be a land bridge. I'm sure the goons in Olympia are already working on a way to make it a toll road though.

Not that you were serious, but the flow wouldn't get to the Narrows. North Tacoma is severely uphill from the Port. I took a look on Google Earth and the hill next to the Narrows is +400 feet. Went over the bridge twice today already.

originally posted by: schuyler
No, it would not. It might wipe out Orting, Renton, Buckley, Kent, and anything else in Rainier Valley.. And it would INCREASE global warming. The lahar flow (mud, basically) would flow no further north than the south end of Lake Washington. It would also flow down the Puyallup River to the Port of Tacoma. The prevailing winds are usually west to east, so the ash cloud would likely miss Seattle altogether. I would not want to be living in the Lake Tapps/Bonney Lake region if it blew, but if you were in the Space Needle at the time, you'd have a good front-row seat, but you'd be safe.

Actually my replay was a snarky remark, don't spoil it. BTW volcanos are the nemesis to global warming, they cause global cooling...