Whats going on at yellowstone?

Originally posted by Shirakawa
I have a question: did this quake occur now totally by chance or could the swarm of the past days have upset some faults and caused it? Or could the cause of both the swarm and this EQ north of it be the same?

[edit on 2009/1/9 by Shirakawa]

I believe all/both to be caused by outflow from the Sour Creek Dome...I posted some graphics several pages back about it but, here...

multimedia-mirage.redirectme.net...

Just saw on the USGS site there was a 3.3 earthquake in North Yellowstone

reply to post by Cedrica

Interesting analysis and thank you for posting some details about it. You might also find it worth taking into account that USGS frequently uses "default" depths in cases where the data for calculating them may not be adequate (ie it is classified as "poorly constrained"). For confirmation that USGS uses default depths you can refer to their Glossary page.

I have noted that up to about three years ago, the most common default depth was 33 km. Now, I more often see 10 km used as a default depth. Some that are originally posted at 0 km are then reset to 10 km after review by a seismologist. This makes a modicum of sense when we consider that depths are often given with a plus/minus range, and it would be odd to statistically have some quakes occurring a few km above the surface of the earth... Anyway, your own data will probably confirm that there is a statistically high number of quakes that occur at depths of precisely 10 or 33 km, so it's worth taking into account for any analysis.

This difficulty of making accurate analyses of depth data due to the use of "default depths" is known within the scientific community, so some researchers have developed methods to remove this data bias and obtain a far more realistic statistical spread. A good example of the methodology, including details of programs used and also with histograms to show the bias and corrected results, can be found in A GIS Interpretation of the Alaska-Aleutian Subduction Zone: Evidence for Segmentation and Topographic Effects by Lindsay A. Lowe and Professor Mark Helper of the U of Texas (Austin).

I think you might find it helpful for what you are doing.

Looking at the recent data for Yellowstone, where they have a fair number of seismographs within a fairly small region and also where the quakes are studied very closely by the experts, we don't see these "default" depths being used. Most of the time the data is very good and they can be pretty accurate with determining the depths. On the other hand, defaults are not that uncommon in more remote regions like the southern Atlantic or off the coast of Sth America, and -- for some odd reason -- in the far-less-remote region of the Pacific Northwest (especially offshore).

Regards,

Mike

here is the report from the USGS

Magnitude 3.3
Date-Time

* Friday, January 09, 2009 at 18:17:31 UTC
* Friday, January 09, 2009 at 11:17:31 AM at epicenter

Location 44.678°N, 110.254°W
Depth 3.1 km (1.9 miles)
Region YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING
Distances

* 45 km (28 miles) SSW (213°) from Cooke City-Silver Gate, MT
* 54 km (34 miles) SE (138°) from Gardiner, MT
* 67 km (42 miles) E (88°) from West Yellowstone, MT
* 456 km (284 miles) NNE (17°) from Salt Lake City, UT

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.4 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 1.2 km (0.7 miles)
Parameters Nph= 29, Dmin=5.8 km, Rmss=0.19 sec, Gp= 61°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=3
Source

* University of Utah Seismograph Stations

Now I might be misinformed but I think the last thing we want to start seeing is earthquakes around the edge of the caldera..

So as for any conclusions to the depth data I was working with, it needs some margin of error to take into account poorer eqipment. Unfortunately, the data just gave actuals. If I had the error bands over time, then the plot would be more relevant.

I have seen +/- 10 km error margins bandied about at a few websites as to the newer equipment. So even if the older equipment from the 70's was worse by twice that at +/- 20 km, a move of 34 km towards the surface over 35 years looks to me like it would be within the margin of error for equipment. Also, the sample is huge, there are 56,000 quakes there! So the average is quite reliable, the st. dev. with such a large sample naturally tightens up.

Therefore, I stand by my overall comment that larger magnitude quakes are slowly moving closer to the surface unless there is some other factor affecting depth readings outside of the varying types of equipment.

Also, my hint at conspiracy wrt the data was with the number of quakes for 2008, not the depth readings of the quakes shown...

Cheers.

I'm seeing Eq's trending N of LA and around LV Caldera...also noticing the Alaska Eq's shifting back to the interior...hhhmmm

[edit on 1/9/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by JustMike


AHH!!! Bless you Mike! That makes perfect sense, thanks for providing me the info. I shall read up some more.

You really do know your stuff...

reply to post by Hx3_1963


I'm sorry if here I will sound very dumb, but what exactly is outflowing and why? Hot steam/water and gasses? Or magma? Is it from the point where arrows start in the picture? The very shallow depth of this earthquake as noted by PuterMan anyway, makes me more inclined to believe that the cause is hydrotermal in nature, but I'm no geologist.

EDIT: the depth of the last 3.1 magnitude earthquake has been changed to 3.1 kilometers by the way.

[edit on 2009/1/9 by Shirakawa]

3.0 at Yellowstone!

Hrm...so we'll see if it begins again!

Question is, why are they are saying it was one quake?

The seismograph shows 3 different quakes. One of them was cut off when I put it on here. But it can be seen at this link: www.seis.utah.edu...




[edit on 9-1-2009 by questioningall]

reply to post by akjen

A quake here and there isn't too bothersome as they get them every year, but yes -- if we see them popping up around a fair section of the caldera's perimeter within a relatively short space of time then I am sure the experts would be watching all the activity in the park and environs very closely indeed, and especially if they are increasing in intensity.

That 3.4 has now been downgraded a 3.3 (not such a huge variation) and its depth has been changed from 0 km to 3.1 km. Original depth uncertainty was plus or minus 10.1 km (which is a bit much); it is now plus or minus 1.2 km -- a much more realistic range of uncertainty.

This shows why the first (auto-generated) data is not always to be relied upon.

Mike

red dot marks the spot. I was a little out trying to convert decimals in my head

Originally posted by Shirakawa
reply to post by Hx3_1963

 

I'm sorry if here I will sound very dumb, but what exactly is outflowing and why? Hot steam/water and gasses? Or magma? Is it from the point where arrows start in the picture? The very shallow depth of this earthquake as noted by PuterMan anyway, makes me more inclined to believe that the cause is hydrotermal in nature, but I'm no geologist.

I believe it's Hydro also...I'll stack these 2 Graphics for ya...their from my site so no linking worrys...

reply to post by questioningall


From this map I think at the moment we should check out YUF, YJC and YMP instead of the previous stations we used for earthquakes in Yellowstone lake.

[edit on 2009/1/9 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Cedrica


Yes. Thanks Mike, for that.

And Cedrica: Don't think my post was aimed just at you or your post. I appreciate the analysis you've done. It is interesting.

I was just sort of replying to the general tone on here concerning us being lied to about all of this.

Since the acoustic waves travel globally, it'd be pretty difficult for anyone to hide earthquakes is mostly what I'm saying.

Someone on the other side of the planet would call them out on it.

So I tend to think that we're seeing the best efforts of everyone involved when it comes to this data. To hide any of it would require a conspiracy involving far too many widely separated groups. Someone would blow the whistle on them.

We can all build our own backyard seismographs, after all. There have been some fun projects in Scientific American over the years about that.

And actually, that's kind of an interesting idea. Maybe all of this interest will stir up some activity among ATS and other readers to deploy an internet-connected amateur seismograph network. Hmmmm Now I've got to think about that one....

Sorry, just rambling now. Gotta go to work!

Cheers!

Originally posted by alysha.angel

Originally posted by spinkyboo
reply to post by rigel434

 

I think the San Bernadino Ca. mountains (last nights 4.5) and Yellowstone
are having a little talk.

naw thats long valley the other caldera in cali that just had a 2.5 right after the 3.o in ys shoould we worry?


correction that wasa 3.3 in ys

[edit on 123131p://4618 by alysha.angel]

Then lets just say -
It appears the recent line of quakes - CA - YS- and LV are energizing each other.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by spinkyboo]

Originally posted by questioningall
Question is, why are they are saying it was one quake?

The seismograph shows 3 different quakes. One of them was cut off when I put it on here. But it can be seen at this link: www.seis.utah.edu...




[edit on 9-1-2009 by questioningall]

anouther one which is 2.6 a bit farther away from the first.

Originally posted by Aphelion
3.0 at Yellowstone!

Hrm...so we'll see if it begins again!

Ok, let us say for arguments sake that the Sour Creek Dome has hardened into a solid block or shield. It will be interesting to observe if a new swarm starts in the current location of the latest quake. If it does to my mind it would signify a significant 'diking' of magma in that region. The proximity to the caldera edge mildly concerns me too.

Moshpet

To Cedrica:


Yikes! I missed your post replying to my post. Things have suddenly gotten very busy here. I apologize. It's getting hard to keep up.

Mods: Sorry for short post. I had to edit it and rewrite.
Mike

[edit on 9/1/09 by JustMike]

[edit on 9/1/09 by JustMike]