Whats going on at yellowstone?

Originally posted by geogeek
reply to post by Mushussu

 

"don't forget to check for deformation changes

i say trust the professionals on Yellowstone website wrt their plots, rather than **jumping/freaking** on a possibly "outlier" GPS measurements ..."


I do not think you understand what I have been saying
or clued in to my back ground.

I shouted out the deformation way back and I have the capabilities to track it.
Further more I do not jump or freak. Check my thread or any who have posted with me.

I asked for those thoughts outside of your graph reading.
Thats all.

I watched Chris Saunders' video on youtube and got a good laugh out of it. Especially the part where he talks about the dinosaurs being extincted by a volcano "500 million years ago." Amazing that they could go extinct before they even evolved- they actually went extinct 65 million years ago and there was a prior, even larger, extinction 250 million years ago, prior to the arrival of dinosaurs. That extinction was likely caused by volcanos, but huge "mantle plume" eruptions in Siberia - very different from Yellowstone.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by rigel434]

Originally posted by MoronMan
Nothing to see here people. It's just the wind! Move along please.

No really, Who has the scientific information, (historic back ground on supervolcanos)..........NO ONE!!!!!

The scientific info is out there, we have it, but whos in control of it?

Not to stoke the conpsiracy fire anymore here but, wouldn't it really only take one guy to make the decision? Remember someone "in the know" has said everthing goes through fema and homeland security now right? Why would it be so hard to change(review) the readings at anytime? Any descrepancies could be wrote off as some are doing here now.
Suspicious?
I would gamble to say there are people on this forum who may be purposely spreading disinfo. Why should we think there are not?
This thread has become very popular.
We could be just being watched and strung along to make sure we dont see the big picture here.
Does not matter whether the equipment is new or not.
What matters is the verifiable fact that the quakes ARE increasing and reflect possibly a "chimney" growing from magma chamber!
We are watching this all now however! Maybe this answers the "why" as well.(y'all hear that in fema land!)
Bring us some of those trailers so we can live on site and study this thing! Thanks! Oh and one of those cash cards would be nice for our drillin stuff!

Remember more quakes-even to the common person- means impending eruption at some point. Especially if they are shown to be all in one spot basically, common sense would tell me... it's all in the numbers!
Yes, I do have some. Thanks.
I do like our odds of nothing happening in our lifetimes, though!
WHEN, is the million dollar word here!

Sorry may be just my paranoia sticking out!
Like I say I've been lied to more than once.
Usually its by the same people who claim they never do!



[edit on 9-1-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by startx.jeff


As of a few minutes ago there had been 99 eqs today 1.0+ of which 54 were located in the California/Montana/Yellowstone regions.

Half the recorded eqs in the world!


[edit on 9-1-2009 by PuterMan]

My concern with the recent events in Yellowstone is that we are seeing movement of magma at a fairly steady rate to the NNE, and that we are only seeing earthquakes when that magma reaches pre-existing areas of instability. My concern arises from the fact that, if you look at the seismic map of the Yellowstone area, there's a huge area of faults about 10 miles NNE of where the current earthquakes are.

If this is magma on the move, what's it going to do when it arrives at this area of extensive faults?

[edit on 9-1-2009 by rigel434]

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by startx.jeff

 

As of a few minutes ago there had been 99 eqs today 1.0+ of which 54 were located in the California/Montana/Yellowstone regions.

Half the recorded eqs in the world!


[edit on 9-1-2009 by PuterMan]

Yeah. Thanks for that. I was counting EQ's that were geographically dense, but the extra perspective is interesting.

reply to post by Aphelion

I think if it gets up over ten quakes in a shortish space of time it'll either be viewed by the experts as a new swarm or a migration of the swarm that's already been observed.

As for Chris Sanders, who asserted in his "Carl Sagan impersonation" Yellowstone video that the dinosaurs were wiped out 500 million years ago and therefore knows less solid paleontology than I did at the age of ten (from "How and Why Wonder Books" of all things), I think he'll soon have a lot more on his mind than the state of affairs within Yellowstone.

Which reminds me to remind everyone that if we post any images, videos or text that are not our own property, we must make sure to give due credit to the copyright owners. It's part of the T&C for ATS and most other places. Last thing we want is to have a govt dept (for example) institute any proceedings against ATS or us personally for publishing anything without giving credit under fair-use provisions. So, every map, every photo, every quoted section of text, should be fully acknowledged.

Okay, we know that FOX "uses" other people's work (including videos) without seeking their permission or giving acknowledgment, but we ain't FOX and we don't have their money either.

If I forget and post stuff without proper acknowledgment please inform me right away so I can fix it. I'm just as capable of forgetting as anyone else!

Regards,

Mike

[edit on 9/1/09 by JustMike]

Mushussu, who asked for opinions on any possible trend for a new series of quakes, so I'll offer my humble 2 kc (Czech crowns). If we do see a trend in the NE direction then we should still keep an eye on the lake discharge rate, because it is still trending upwards and now barely settles at less than 500 cu ft/sec, with the Yellowstone River level at the gauge earlier today recording the highest level it has shown thus far. It also showed its highest outflow today: 525 cu ft/sec at 4:45 am and again at 9:00 am, significantly above the mean for this date (at 399 cu ft/sec). While we can't really determine what the reason is for the lake's above-mean discharge it's something that can't be ignored or glossed over.




Quite Right , and I have been monitoring. Remember the lake out put and rise conversations? I have the same numbers you have. I am also aware that we are not all tracking the same things. Some siesmos, some graphs, some making and charting like Shirakawa. But we are all putting in our finds. It is the Elephant story again. We are all describing and analyzing the same beast. Just different angles.
Appreciate you posts as always.

Best ,
Mushussu

The 1.5 just upgraded to 1.9



Order is latest at top

[edit on 9-1-2009 by PuterMan]


[edit on 9-1-2009 by PuterMan]

Originally posted by rigel434
My concern with the recent events in Yellowstone is that we are seeing movement of magma at a fairly steady rate to the NNE, and that we are only seeing earthquakes when that magma reaches pre-existing areas of instability. My concern arises from the fact that, if you look at the seismic map of the Yellowstone area, there's a huge area of faults about 10 miles NNE of where the current earthquakes are.

If this is magma on the move, what's it going to do when it arrives at this area of extensive faults?

[edit on 9-1-2009 by rigel434]

I am not a geologist yet, but I would think the magma would first fill in any empty space for the fault down first (because of gravity) then continue up towards the surface along the weakest point eventually punching through (this is called eruption).

reply to post by JustMike


Very much good point Mike!!!...star!!

I'm done with posting here but still reading every single post so will keep an eye out for credits given to images....

Peace

This article is interesting because an independent geologist comes right out and says he thinks the quakes are caused by magma movement.

www.localnews8.com...

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK - Some pretty interesting things have been happening at Yellowstone National Park since December 26. Over the last week, geologists have recorded more than 400 small earthquakes. Quakes in that number are called an earthquake swarm.

For a quake to do damage it has to be at least a 4.0 magnitude. None of the recent Yellowstone earthquakes have, but every one has happened in the same spot underneath Yellowstone Lake.

Robert Clayton has taught geology at Brigham Young University-Idaho for six years.

"When there's something really interesting happening, I post it on my office door so everyone can see," said Clayton.

Things are definitely interesting right now.

"That's quite a number of earthquakes," said the excited geologist. "The ones in bold type are of greater magnitude."

The incredibly long list represented 400 or more earthquakes that have happened under the lake.

"We think it's where more magma heat and steam escaped through cracks in the crust," said Clayton. "That's probably what's causing the earthquakes."

He said the last time Yellowstone saw this kind of activity was close to 20 years ago.

"What's interesting about this earthquake swarm is that it's in a very large and active volcano," described Clayton.

The professor has been monitoring the quakes through Yellowstone's website and BYU-Idaho's own seismograph machine. Although the U.S Geological Survey and the University of Utah -- two organizations responsible for monitoring the quakes -- haven't given an official explanation yet, Clayton has his own theory.

"It's probably a little bit of magma moving through fractures. There's also a lot of ground water under Yellowstone and some of the shallower earthquakes may be steam explosions and fractures underground,' said Clayton. "Those can have quite a force and send out shock waves that we record as earthquakes."

Originally posted by alysha.angel

Originally posted by geogeek
reply to post by Mushussu

 

don't forget to check for deformation changes ... its equally or even more important than earthquakes ... problem is u need a week or so of GPS data to be sure U have enough statistics to see a trend line change (i think error bars are +/- about 4 mm, or so, and probably depends on current GPS constellation @ time of reading) .. i say trust the professionals on Yellowstone website wrt their plots, rather than jumping/freaking on a possibly "outlier" GPS measurements ...

and U guys should also keep an eye on Long Valley Caldera in California, like i said before, deformation went through some kind of "inflection event" about 2 months ago .. and now we are starting to have earthquakes again on the "resurgent dome" .. Long Valley Caldera ain't that much smaller than Yellowstone ...

AND IT HAS ERUPTED in the last 600 years, and MAYBE ONLY 150 Years ago

[edit on 9-1-2009 by geogeek]

[edit on 9-1-2009 by geogeek]

that last eruption at long valley was a single vent event but it would be scary as hell if both blew at the same time. i got a daughter in cali

I recall it be a string of Domes starting at just south of Mono Lake and ending just east of Mammoth mountain ski resort in the Caldera itself ... ( 600 years ago ..)

Originally posted by rigel434
My concern with the recent events in Yellowstone is that we are seeing movement of magma at a fairly steady rate to the NNE, and that we are only seeing earthquakes when that magma reaches pre-existing areas of instability. My concern arises from the fact that, if you look at the seismic map of the Yellowstone area, there's a huge area of faults about 10 miles NNE of where the current earthquakes are.

If this is magma on the move, what's it going to do when it arrives at this area of extensive faults?

[edit on 9-1-2009 by rigel434]

any idea what the rate of movement is? At the current rate when would the magma arrive in the fractured area?

Originally posted by rigel434
This article is interesting because an independent geologist comes right out and says he thinks the quakes are caused by magma movement.

www.localnews8.com...

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK - Some pretty interesting things have been happening at Yellowstone National Park since December 26. Over the last week, geologists have recorded more than 400 small earthquakes. Quakes in that number are called an earthquake swarm.

For a quake to do damage it has to be at least a 4.0 magnitude. None of the recent Yellowstone earthquakes have, but every one has happened in the same spot underneath Yellowstone Lake.

Robert Clayton has taught geology at Brigham Young University-Idaho for six years.

"When there's something really interesting happening, I post it on my office door so everyone can see," said Clayton.

Things are definitely interesting right now.

"That's quite a number of earthquakes," said the excited geologist. "The ones in bold type are of greater magnitude."

The incredibly long list represented 400 or more earthquakes that have happened under the lake.

"We think it's where more magma heat and steam escaped through cracks in the crust," said Clayton. "That's probably what's causing the earthquakes."

He said the last time Yellowstone saw this kind of activity was close to 20 years ago.

"What's interesting about this earthquake swarm is that it's in a very large and active volcano," described Clayton.

The professor has been monitoring the quakes through Yellowstone's website and BYU-Idaho's own seismograph machine. Although the U.S Geological Survey and the University of Utah -- two organizations responsible for monitoring the quakes -- haven't given an official explanation yet, Clayton has his own theory.

"It's probably a little bit of magma moving through fractures. There's also a lot of ground water under Yellowstone and some of the shallower earthquakes may be steam explosions and fractures underground,' said Clayton. "Those can have quite a force and send out shock waves that we record as earthquakes."

Just a tip.... when quoting external sources use the [ ex ]without the spaces at the beginning of the quote followed by a [ /ex ] without the spaces to close the quote. That way it appears like above!

Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Amaxium

Originally posted by rigel434
My concern with the recent events in Yellowstone is that we are seeing movement of magma at a fairly steady rate to the NNE, and that we are only seeing earthquakes when that magma reaches pre-existing areas of instability. My concern arises from the fact that, if you look at the seismic map of the Yellowstone area, there's a huge area of faults about 10 miles NNE of where the current earthquakes are.

If this is magma on the move, what's it going to do when it arrives at this area of extensive faults?

[edit on 9-1-2009 by rigel434]

I am not a geologist yet, but I would think the magma would first fill in any empty space for the fault down first (because of gravity) then continue up towards the surface along the weakest point eventually punching through (this is called eruption).

I am of the mind that Magma moves like a fluid, the path of least resistance will always be taken. It's technically under pressure if it is moving thus gravity will not play that big of a factor. Faults, stress fractures and so on will be the factors.

Moshpet

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by JustMike

 

I'm done with posting here

Why?? Your input, opinions and conspiracy therories are as valid as the next persons.

Originally posted by beefytee

any idea what the rate of movement is? At the current rate when would the magma arrive in the fractured area?

Judging by the location of the prior quakes and the ones today, looks like they may arrive there in the 5-7 day range. Judge for yourself on the map:

earthquake.usgs.gov...

I am not a geologist yet, but I would think the magma would first fill in any empty space for the fault down first (because of gravity) then continue up towards the surface along the weakest point eventually punching through (this is called eruption).

\

no real empty spaces below .. too much gravitation mass above it .. except it the case where U have super pressurized gases ( I concede that point) ... like in some oil & natural gas reservoirs & i suppose Calderas too ... better to think of it as zones of weakness due to faulting and or hydrothermal degradation (weaking of rock/rotting of rock (if U will) ) due to temperatures, but especially by the acidic nature of hydrothermal/volcanic systems