Whats going on at yellowstone?

Powell Tribune
Written by CJ Baker
Thursday, 08 January 2009

Scientists ready to analyze Yellowstone Park quake data

powelltribune.com...

Another Local Newspaper Report...a few different things mentioned than some other Report...



[edit on 1/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Being a good conspirator of course, if they don't get LKWY on line soon, or if they post back data rather, the time from for the 7 day lists will have passed and unless you get the data from ANSS then you won't know that they have entered things. Since ANSS does not give EQIDs for Wyoming (for some reason best know to themselves???) then the only way to interpret the data will be by lat and long.

hey folks somebody needs to smack these folks who said that YS is over due

2.1 mill divided by 3 is 700 .


last big one was 640 thou years ago shes
still got 70 thou years intil the big next one..


do the math.

Some very small activity near YLT station, but it doesn't look very seismic on GEE:

Link to the image

EDIT
Now you can also check out here on YLT webicorder


[edit on 2009/1/12 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by alysha.angel


You mean I can stop going google eyed at seimso graphs, cease taking the tablets for heart palpitations, stop downloading reams and reams of data etc and RELAX!!

Aw shucks, what am I going to do for the next 70,000 years????

reply to post by alysha.angel
You are quite right. Well said!

Those who claim that Yellowstone is "overdue" for the Big One apparently lack any understanding of the fact that not only is this a natural system and ideas of clockwork regularity don't apply, but that the previous events didn't occur at anything like precisely 640,000-year intervals anyway. They are talking without thinking, to be honest, or out of ignorance, and they're best ignored.

The truth of the matter is that even if Yellowstone did erupt at almost exactly 640,000-year intervals in the past (which it didn't), then even if we could be sure of those time intervals to an accuracy of better than 99.8% (which we can't be), that tiny 0.2% margin of error equates to more than 1,000 years.

But the scaremongers don't want to hear that...

Regards -- and again, thanks for your post,

Mike

reply to post by PuterMan




ah dunno you can sow your wild seeds in the mean time .


@just mike your welcome
only trying to learn and help and sometimes throw in my two cents .

reply to post by JustMike


800,000 years and 660,00 year intervals between which could also mean that the next one should have been 520,00 years which makes it 120,000 years overdue! Lies, damned lies and then there is statistics!

As you rightly say there is no clockwork spring running these events and therefore one cannot also state that the next one still has 70,00 years to go.

The only way that a potential eruption can be determined is by reading the signs. This itself presents a problem as I for one was not around (just according to my kids) for the last one so like everyone else cannot know exactly what the signs are.

This thread is attempting, mostly from a non-academic point of view, to try to formulate an opinion of what is or is not likely to happen. We are all learning and I have to commend the valuable input from all the members.

Our opinions are just as valid as the opinions of the 'man in the street' and to a certain extent more so, but let us not miss the point of the more recent postings which is not whether or not the Caldera is about to blow, but whether or not valuable data is being withheld from the public.

This is after all a conspiracy site and I assume that those persons who are contributing to the discussions are of a like mind. If any person reading the posts considers that all this is real and factual, then they would be best advised to stop reading.

We all have a very serious and real desire to get to the bottom of what may or may not be happening, never the less at the end of the day our opinions cannot be other than supposition, and occasionally speculation.


[edit on 12/1/09 by PuterMan]

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
reply to post by alysha.angel

 

Pay no attention to YPP that things been spewin' out garbage on and off for awhile now...(I Hope!)

yup, it needs some TLC from the electronic techies of UT or USGS ( as i have said before , hate to repeat myself, as i'm sure others do to ...)


[edit on 12/1/09 by geogeek]

Is TA.H16A. .BHE harmonic. Also could that be the reason LKWY is off as if we saw the data then it would be obvious?

I saw something about us heading into another ice age that caught my attention. I guess our orbit, wobble, and even tilt on axis changes every now and then and throws us into ice age.

I wonder if increased volcanic activity could go hand in hand with this. I'm sure looking at core samples this would be easily correlated or disproven. It makes sense to me that certain changes in the movement of the planet could mess with the creamy center. And increased volcanic activity does generally lower the surface temps of the planet...just a thought.

Originally posted by geogeek

yup, it needs some TLC from the electronic techies of UT or USGS ( as i have said before , hate to repeat myself, as i'm sure others do to ...)

Remember that scene from "Dante's Peak"? Perhaps they need to kick it instead.

Billy Crystal, Yellowstone soothsayer:

pr-canada.net...

NEW YORK, NY (January 12, 2009) Speaking last night to talk show host David Letterman, Tony- and Emmy-Award winning performer Billy Crystal made a surprise prediction that the U.S. would experience a “major or minor earthquake” centered around Yellowstone National Park at the same date as the inauguration of President-Elect Barack Obama.
“I don’t know, it just came to me in your Green Room that this would happen,” the Long Island native confided to a somewhat shaken Letterman. “I don’t know the meaning of it, if any.”

The last eruption of any kind at Yellowstone was a small lava flow about 70,000 years ago.

But since Dec. 26, there have been more than 900 earthquakes recorded under the Yellowstone Lake. Of those, 500 were greater in magnitude than 2.0, with the largest earthquake of 3.9 occurring Dec. 28.

Scientists monitoring the situation insist there is no cause for alarm. As of last week, the seismic activity they are calling “a swarm of earthquakes” seemed to have subsided.

In a recent Associated Press report on the quakes, park geologist Hank Heasler said the odds of a cataclysmic eruption at Yellowstone anytime soon are astonishingly remote - about the same as a large meteorite hitting Earth.

The last such eruption occurred 640,000 years ago. That volcanic eruption was 1,000 times more powerful than the 1980 blast at Mount St. Helens. The earlier eruption hurled ash as far away as present-day Louisiana.

But Crystal told Letterman the earthquake he was predicting would be “substantially smaller than that.”

Officials at Yellowstone were skeptical of Crystal’s prediction. "Statistically, it would be surprising to see an eruption the next hundred years," said Jake Lowenstern, the Menlo Park, Calif.-based scientist in charge of Yellowstone Volcano Observatory.

reply to post by rigel434



All right, fellow ATS's... Which one of you is Billy Crystal?

Sorry for the one liner...Seriously, he could be reading this! There are very experienced and knowledgeable posters here... and a Great Big Thanks to all of you for the hours of research and postings.

Originally posted by beefytee
I saw something about us heading into another ice age that caught my attention. I guess our orbit, wobble, and even tilt on axis changes every now and then and throws us into ice age.

I wonder if increased volcanic activity could go hand in hand with this. I'm sure looking at core samples this would be easily correlated or disproven. It makes sense to me that certain changes in the movement of the planet could mess with the creamy center. And increased volcanic activity does generally lower the surface temps of the planet...just a thought.

there is a probable link (some evidence for ...) between some types of eruptions and volcanic activity W.R.T. Ice Ages ...
as ice sheets retreated in western BC Canada , Canada .. the coastal volcanoes (Canadian Cascades) went into uncharacteristically intense activity ... the hand-waving geophysical geochemical argument is that rather rapid pressure release on the magma chamber allowed magmatic gas to come out of solution (it had previously been under higher pressure due gravitational weight of ice (up to 2 Km thick)) & force an eruption ... (or something like that) Mt. Garibaldi, Mt. Cayley, Mt. Price, etc .... around 12K years ago ...

p.s. think of heading up a pot water to 210F at sea level and then transporting (hi Star Trek, Mr Scott) up to the top of Mt. Everest ... what's going to happen ... ????

Mt. Garibaldi 3 mountains to the west of Next Winter Olympic site, Mt price, two mountains over .. Mt. Cayley just to north-west of Whistler/Mt. Blackcomb ski site ... have fun with this ....


perhaps a Canadian conspiracy to wipe out your Nordic team ???



[edit on 12/1/09 by geogeek]

reply to post by PuterMan
Yes, again -- well said. Over on another thread I inhabit a lot, which is based on looking at experimental methods of quake prediction, we have long-since noted and logged multiple examples of discrepancies in quake data from USGS, and have wondered aloud about it. We have wondered a lot about it in fact, because there have been many discrepancies for us to wonder about, like for example the fact that five quakes were logged in Utah (in 3 different locations) on Dec 27, 2008 -- the day that the Yellowstone swarm started to intensify -- and that they were all subsequently deleted by USGS (and p.d.q. at that), or for another example that there was a quake off the coast of Cal near Frisco yesterday that also got deleted... We also wonder why it is that waveform data are available for some tiny quakes in California, but not at all for any quakes in Nevada, and almost never for quakes offshore in the PNW.

But I won't go further with that here. Just giving some examples.

Some could argue that scientific agencies such as the USGS always present their data in a complete, factual, timely and consistent manner and are not in the least affected by political or business pressures. I will quite happily listen to those arguments, because everyone has a right to state their beliefs, but that doesn't mean I will agree with them. The same goes for the new members who join ATS and immediately post that we are wrong, our reading of the events is wrong and then say in so many words: "nothing to see here, move along..."

I don't mean all new members, of course. Just the ones who seem to have a certain and contrary agenda.

And it's funny how these new members who do such things seem to pop up just when we think we're on to something... Fine. Let 'em post. It helps us to see if we're on track or not.

Over on the other thread, we acknowledged that sometimes data are wrong, and yes, quakes get posted that didn't really happen, and so on. But there are certain places where things "go wrong" or "don't really happen" an awful lot more than in other places. Like Utah, and parts of Nevada for example.

Could there be a plausible explanation for these discrepancies? Sure. Do we get a plausible explanation? Nope. If we take the time to ask, we don't get anything except a stock answer or a form email which tells us nothing specific.

And now we have Yellowstone. Station LKWY shows unusual traces that I took to calling "pulses" many pages back in this thread. They intensify in strength, grow more frequent, then begin to fade as more activity build up on the traces. And then -- LKWY goes offline. Well, the trace does anyway.

It happened before Christmas, and it was down for four days. Then it came back again. Those pulses returned, even stronger than before, then they faded, other activity built up, and we lost the station again. Then it came back and we lost it again.

I have to admit that I'm suspicious about that. I've read all the possible reasons why it goes down, but let's be honest: this is a key station, near the recent swarm. Surely if there's a problem they'd darned well fix it?

The honest truth is that no govt agency can be completely divorced from political influences, and I feel that even in this case, those influences may be affecting what we are being told or even what we are able to find out for ourselves.

reply to post by geogeek
In other words, what you are talking about vis-a-vis melting ice sheets, is isotrophic rebound, right? (AKA post-glacial rebound.)

By the way, you can edit out all those "edit on" lines at the end of your post if you wish to keep things tidy. Just do an edit and delete them and then you'll only have one new one when you finish the edit.

Mike

[edit on 12/1/09 by JustMike]

What's going on @ YPP? Wind? I cant make 2 cents out of it but was the location for the most recent lava flow so Id like to get verification.

reply to post by JustMike


I believe so ... I have seen some concern recently in the volcanologic literature, that if ice sheets melting really starts to happen, Volcanic areas within these areas can be expected to become more eruptive (Chile, Antarctica, Alaska, Canada, Washington: Mt Rainier, Mt. Baker ...) ... how widely it is accepted I don't know ... but the Canadian BC & GSC geoscience people ,I believe, seem have no problems with the concept ( at least the ones I have spoken to in person, or by email , ie. like Cathy Hickman ) and in the Canadian geoscience literature the correlation between ice sheet melting 12K years ago & BCs volcanic activity pulse is mentioned fairly regularly

the key here is the rapid decrease in magma chamber pressure, rather that the uplift / rebound that will follow

Volcanoes of Canada:
gsc.nrcan.gc.ca...

[edit on 12/1/09 by geogeek]

Originally posted by rigel434
Billy Crystal, Yellowstone soothsayer:

pr-canada.net...

Ummm ... wtf??? Billy Crystal is scheduled to be on tonight's (Monday, January12th) Letterman ~ and IIRC, the shows are taped the evening they air, not the day before. I can't seem to find this story anyplace else. Did anyone here happen to actually see this?