Whats going on at yellowstone?

Originally posted by xoxo stacie
reply to post by SixNine

 

So its been going up and down? Not to sure due to the lack of headers. Almost looks like its filling up then spewing it out with those kinds of numbers.

Another view:
quake.wr.usgs.gov...

I'm curious to what ppp stands for...

Originally posted by worldwatcher
I recall a few pages back a few members were discussing water levels above normal in a lake or creek something along those lines... So it happens that I just stumbled on this article on Global warming is killing frogs, salamanders in Yellowstone Park posted back in October 2008 which states that some of the lakes and ponds were drying up. Could it be possible that heat generated from an awakening volcano underground was the culprit and not global warming?

I read something about this last night and didn't save the link. It was on a govt owned site, maybe the USGS

From what I recall, it said some lakes dried up, while others rose and that it could be caused by the uplift of the land - like tipping a bowl of water to one side. But this was only speculation and they really weren't sure.

reply to post by elitegamer23

Cool idea. I've added a post to your thread with about a dozen links. Hopefully they'll be useful to some members.

Regards,

Mike

reply to post by SixNine


whoa - what is that?

whatever PPP is - it's before 12/27

it starts 12/24

do you remember that guy at the beginning of the thread who said his dad had to leave on Xmas day to fly to canada for a seismologist meeting - very unusual for him.

I've been looking for something before 12/27 when we all started to hear about it.

I have to say though - unless this is a list of all unusual stuff - I don't see anything else apart from the mysterious PPP to set the last few days apart from everything else on the list.

do you?

reply to post by SixNine


I've been looking at the columns.

so - the first is obviously the date and the second - at first I thought was the #'d quake of that year - but then I noticed that they come very close but never get over 10,000 quakes a year. that's a little too perfect - so I'm not sure what that is - maybe a grid or chart line #?

as far as the columns with 3.2s etc - I'd guess that the first one was the immediate reading and the second was the confirmed on - but that may be totally wrong and it's all that BHE BHN BHZ stuff?

did you find more of these?

It has to do with the deformation of the land..
is there a way to get the quake info for 01 21 2004 ?

HOLY cow did you guys get that spike?
It was instant on the other side of the lake nothing headed north on the west side

BHE 464.09/-929.12
BHN 384.93/-350.90
BHZ 343.32/-314.18

As far as I can remember those are the highest so far

[edit on 3-1-2009 by xoxo stacie]

reply to post by Absum!

Hello Absum!,

your query regarding possible causes of the unseasonal increase in discharge from the lake has already been discussed within the thread some pages back. However, as it's a long thread I wouldn't blame you for missing it. I've written about four or five posts relating to this and one that sums things up is here, but I was not alone in those conclusions; others have since supported them.

I and some others feel that this much-higher-than-normal water discharge is very significant and we are following it closely, especially as its periodic peaks relate to high levels of activity on the helicorders nearer to the lake.

Best regards,

Mike

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
CALM DOWN!!!

Lets keep it real and scientific eh....

Look at this link:

USGS Real Time Water Activity etc Yellowstone

As you will see THE WATER OUTFLOW is less than in nov 08

A note: if my reply to you appears a bit terse then I apologize, but I have to say that your own post, with its "shouting" and so forth, is not particularly endearing... EDIT to add: That being said, I think any differences can be resolved between reasonable people and your many posts show that you are. I have another post on the next page (p 148) that addresses your later post to this one and which contains the images. I'd appreciate if you'd read it before responding. Thank you.

To begin: I think we are keeping quite calm, considering the circumstances. I have followed this thread from page one and there has been remarkably little hysteria.

The link you provided shows the data for Tantalus Creek at Norris Junction, which is a minor creek with an outflow of about 1 to 2% of what is being discharged from Yellowstone Lake. The actual link to the data page for the lake is here, and if you study it you will see that it is currently trending above the median and that this trend shows peaks of discharge that correspond to the times of greatest overall activity being shown on the helicorders in the lake's vicinity.

and:

ITS WINTER look at the PRECIPITATION CHART on that link....

THIS IS NOT THE HIGHEST OUTFLOW for years.

We know that it's winter -- and well below freezing in that location. That precipitation is not rain, that would flow down water courses and into the lake, but snow, which even if it falls on the lake itself will not affect its level as the lake's surface is frozen over.

There is more water in the lake as its winter, its raining lots and the entire USA has had huge snow and ice storms recently.

YThe outflow is actually very close to the MEDIAN for this time of year and is not STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT to any degree from the median.

As I said, it's not raining there, it's snowing. The region is around 7,500 to 8,000 feet above sea level, it's well below freezing and it is not raining. The outflow is not close to the median but is trending in the opposite direction from what it should be doing.

Now There could be another factor which WOULD BE OF CONCERN that would add outflow from the lake, that being the fact which I am sure is already mentioned in the thread that the lake has recently been found to have a massive amount of Hydrothermal Vents... if these were adding water to the system, above the norm, that would indicate a increased magma filled chamber or activity, but as the link I provide shows the TEMPRATURE chart does not indicate this.

There is no temperature chart available for the lake. We would dearly love to find one but so far we have not, as we have discussed several times within this thread. You are basing your entire presentation on data from the wrong location.

I have not seen anything in this thread that says "a massive amount of hydrothermal vents" have recently been found in the lake and I have read the entire thread. The fact that you say "which I am sure is already mentioned in the thread" clearly means that you have not read it, and as you are urging us to be scientific perhaps you should take the time to do some research and read it. However, thank you for mentioning those hydrothermal vents. If you have a source then please post it on the thread. We always appreciate the positive input of solid information.

Rain water.

melting Snow and ice.

Its january.

Normal.

Rain water? In Yellowstone in January? Okay, if there is a sudden uptick of around 15 to 18 degrees Celsius it might rain, but otherwise, it's highly unlikely. Melting snow and ice? Maybe, but we have no temperature data for either the lake's outflow or within the lake itself, so we have based our discussion on what else could be the cause of the above-median outflow. A discussion that has continued over several pages within the thread, without hysteria, but calmly and thoughtfully and generally very genially.

The outflow, Temp and behaviour of the hydrology of the lake at the present is within totally normal ranges and the median for the lake from recording began.

Kind Regards,

Elf.

They would be within the normal ranges if the page you used for the basis of your argument was data for the lake or its outflow, but it wasn't. A small creek in an area of geysers and hot springs will give very different readings to a fairly large, cold, frozen-over lake.

ps there is a big difference in Science between "Instantaneous" results and actual readings when correctly correlated.

Yes, thank you for the information. I expect that most of us are aware of the potential for minor deviations in instantaneous data versus correctly correlated data, but the trends in the actual lake outflow data are quite apparent and I think (quite sincerely) that we'd appreciate your own assessment of them.
Kind regards,

Mike

[edit on 3/1/09 by JustMike]

Ah she is calm again I see. This is good news for once! I noticed the chaotic nature at Lake Mary has subsided. I am going to bed now so hopefully it will stay peaceful while I am asleep! Night all

Hey all ,
Back for a bit.
Here are some bits of good read about good old Y that hit in the last 24 hours or have re appeared. Hope these have not already been posted, but for the last one , It may be a good time for a laugh! Hope you enjoy

Written back in o6 last paragraphs good chuckle:
www.sciam.com...

Written today, mid way in Dr. Smith might be seen as eating a few of his words:
www.denverpost.com...

Written today, a good tongue and cheek view of where to be if she blows,especialy at the bottom where Montana lands on Minnisota and they were still funny:
'Paris will be a fine place to wait out the Big Belch'
By garrison keillor
January 1, 2009
www.baltimoresun.com...

nice reply mike- i agree with you 100 %. i have been following this thread since the beginning and have found it very very informative but some people just talk s*** without bothering to read it or do any kind of research on what is actually going on

Wow ,
Justmike you had to field some good ones today.
Good on you for dealing with it they way you did.
And you started with such a head ache this am too.
Keep up the good work.
I am out.zzzzzzzzz

I am good friends with a practicing geologist and I ran the info below by him to get his opinion; he responded with this and gave me permission to post it but not with his name. I decided to ASK A GEOLOGIST! No use starting rumors about JDF and YS if there is little basis?!

(Note: he is not giving an opinion about the Yellowstone situation but has been
checking out the map URLs I sent him: I hope that he will give his opinion
after he does some catching up, but I doubt that he will.)

PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST about the Juan de Fuca Plate and "Yellowstone"

START QUOTE

The Juan de Fuca plate is generated from a spreading center 100 to 300 miles off the Oregon coast. The Juan de Fuca plate migrates eastward from the spreading center.

However, the entire Eastern Pacific Plate is moving to the Northwest. The North American Plate is moving to the Southwest

The net result is that the Juan de Fuca Plate is being subducted beneath the western margin of the North American continent. The subduction of this plate gives rise to the Cascade's volcanic chain.

he Juan de Fuca subduction zone is about 740 miles west of Yellowstone and is unrelated to the Yellowstone volcanism.

The angle of the subducting Juan de Fuca plate (the dip of the subduction zone) is mapped by epicenters of the quakes and by velocities of seismic waves. The angle of subduction is calculated to be about 50° and hence would not reach nearly as far east as Yellowstone.

The Yellowstone volcanism is due to an underlying mantle plume hotspot. As the North American Plate migrates over this upwelling of hot mantle material, lava flows erupt, crustal material melts and near-surface magma chambers form which lead to caldera formation.

The Snake River Plain illustrates the passage of the North American Plate passing over the mantle plume. This trough is filled with the resultant volcanic products generated by process. One can think of this process sort of like passing a piece of wax paper over a candle and causing the wax to boil up in its wake.

END QUOTE

here is the reference for the paper he read:

seismo.berkeley.edu...

~~
pg. 108
Reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 11:36 PM by Mushussu

reply to post by maeveoc

It is part of the whole system but you do not have to go that far.
The slip faults along the Cal coast are sliding north to the Juan de Fuco. pushing the Juan in under the NW. They now believe that the Jaun extends farther in and at a shallower depth than before. The inner corner if you will of the Jaun pivots at /near Y.

I posted this question in another thread, but had no replies. That thread was also full of bashing and sensation, so I feel this thread is a better place to ask.

I remember reading somewhere that late 1800's a new volcano was "born" in mexico, and that the thing grew huge in just a couple of days. I can't remember where I read it and I can't find it right now. My question is, does anybody of you know about this volcano? And does anybody know if, besides several other things that can happen to yellowstone, this is something that could happen there?

Also I want to thank you all for the great teamwork in posting and analysing accurate data! I'm nowhere near a expert but I do know proper analysing without panic is the most important thing to do! So thumbs up for you

reply to post by EarthShine


WOW thanks earthshine there is more info in that on Juan than I have read in most of the overly wordy pdf's....Good information to know too. Being it doesnt go all the way in it must not be "plate" slipage.

reply to post by ambushrocks


i believe it was popocatepetl- i remember reading about that somewhere
also look at iceland and the phillipines and hawaii and so forth and they also have new born islands or volcanoes quite often. except for iceland it is why it is called the ring of fire remember

Thank you bigfoot and mushussu for your comments. (Btw bigfoot, you have a U2U).

One of the difficulties we face in a long thread is members coming in to post comments without having read the thread or even perhaps the previous few pages to where they post. I would encourage any visitors to the thread to at least browse it and get an idea of what has been posted. Some of us have had to respond to the same queries or "arguments" (scientific meaning) multiple times and this makes the thread tedious to read and redundant in some places.

To bring some new readers up to date regarding the current situation with Yellowstone, we are monitoring the traces of the various helicorders for quakes and also general "activity", which in some cases appear to have harmonic components. "Harmonic" traces are of concern because they indicate the subterraneal movement of fluid/s. They do not necessarily indicate magma flow, but might also indicate movements of water and/or mud. We should not automatically assume "magma flow" if we see evidence of harmonics. Scientists would not without a lot of extra data, so neither should we.

A few words about these "harmonics": some have asserted that these "harmonic" traces are the result of "wind". It has already been established in this thread that while wind might be a factor in some cases, it cannot possibly account for the extensive, hours-long and virtually unvarying high levels of "harmonic" activity that have been recorded on some helicorders, for example YML that went about sixteen hours straight yesterday with almost no change in its very intense "harmonic" traces, which did not correspond to the variations in the wind conditions in the Yellowstone region. Another station allegedly affected by "wind" actually has its sensor some 300 feet down inside a bore hole, with a concrete box atop it. It is highly unlikely that any "wind" short of a cat 5 hurricane (impossible there) or a super-tornado (unreported there in the past week) would have the slightest effect on it. Reports were referenced to this sensor's location, pictures were shown of it, but still we got the "it's the wind" argument.

I for one am simply going to ignore anyone who posts and says "it's the wind...all those 'harmonics' are just the wind", because this argument has already been addressed in this thread several times and to keep doing so is redundant.

The same applies to new posters who claim "those are not harmonics because they don't look like them" and who ignore the several previous posts where we have provided images of and links to seismographs from the USGS and other authorities, properly annotated by seismologists and showing features that strongly resemble or are identical to the ones from the Yellowstone helicorders. I repeat: the information is in the thread. It's documented and inarguable.

Naturally, any new and relevant information or input is always welcome by all of us who are concerned with trying to understand what is going in Yellowstone. That is the subject of this thread, after all. Those who wish to rebut our hypotheses or ideas are also welcome if they can provide solid and relevant evidence that has not already been discussed or considered. We are always ready to learn and take on board new concepts and discard ones that are shown to be false. But to present the same arguments that have already been dealt with several times within this thread does no-one any favors. If in doubt, take the time and please read or at least skim the thread. The images I referred to will be easy to see even if a person doesn't read every post.

Though I'm writing from my own perspective I hope that other members will not be offended that I've expressed an opinion that I believe most will share.

Concerning the "harmonics": over the past few days we have seen times when these "harmonics" appear to continue for long periods of time -- sometimes several hours -- and then recede again to give a much quieter-looking trace. We have noted that the times when these harmonics are at their most intense seem to correspond very closely with an increase in recorded discharge (ie outflow) from Yellowstone lake, and then when the helicorders show things are "quieter", the rate of lake discharge also goes down again. However, the general trend of lake discharge is upwards, meaning that it is trending in the opposite direction from the expected median outflow rate (based upon 79 years of records).

At the present time, the figures show that the daily rate of discharge is trending higher than it was a week ago. At that time, it was typically around 450 cu ft/sec; now the figures show a rough average of about 470 -- 480 cu ft/sec. The fact that these higher values are being shown and that the lake's discharge is not returning to its levels of a week ago strongly suggest that even when the helicorders show things are relatively quiet, other factors are at work to prevent the lake's rate of discharge from dropping down to where it was then, let alone falling to somewhere close to the median figure of around 400 cu ft/sec.

This is a matter of some concern as there are only a few scenarios to account for this increase in outflow. Rainfall is not one of them as it's well below freezing in that area and the precipitation will be in the form of snow or other "frozen water" forms. The scenarios are discussed in the thread and you can find a fair amount about them from around page 120 onwards (and some before then as well).

Any new ideas for what may be causing the above-median and upward-trending outflow are welcome. Truly!

For those who would like to study the data for the fifteen-minute readings of Yellowstone Lake's outflow (updated regularly), you may find them here. Please note that the data have not yet been "cleaned up", but even so, they give a pretty clear picture of the current situation. The page with the graphs for the lake's level and outflow are in my post not far above this one so I won't post it again.

Regards,

Mike

[edit on 3/1/09 by JustMike]

reply to post by ambushrocks

The volcano is named Parícutin, and actually it's a lot more recent. It began in 1943. You can read about it in this Wikipedia article. Fascinating event. Rotten luck for the poor farmer, though.

Regards,

Mike

reply to post by JustMike


sorry mike can't reply( guess i don't have enough points or whatever) but thank you. is a great thread except for him and that comrade guy lol - everyone else is very informative. i have done limited research on this- not having my monitor vibrate or any thing like that- but i do think something is going to happen at some point. but you never know- not a cause for panic YET. and to everyone else keep up the good research- as i said many pages ago i'm addicted to this thread. and i also find it interesting we had 2 eq's in 3 days in pa. and we never get any. last i remember was about 1990. but these were close to each other hmmm makes one wonder....

[edit on 3-1-2009 by bigfoot1212]