Whats going on at yellowstone?

The problem is, that the hole would be insta filled with magma so the idea isnt really good. - Since there is no doupt that there is so much magma in that champer it is amazing.
IF THAT BE THE CASE THEN WHY HAS SHE NOT BLOW HER TOP?

Disclaimer: This my own personal opinion based on internet research and a good knowledge of weather systems from 'A' level study and as a glider pilot. I am not knocking anyone else's theories, just trying to put into words my own feelings on the subject.

Earthquake clouds are clouds claimed to be signs of imminent earthquakes. The analyses of earthquake clouds as a form of earthquake prediction are generally not accepted by seismologists and other scientists.

en.wikipedia.org...

Earthquakes occur in all types of weather, in all climate zones, in all seasons of the year, and at any time of day.

en.wikipedia.org...

In essence this page in Wkikpedia is saying that water vapour being heated up can cause these clouds. This would infer that any cloud formation would be of a local nature with it's souce above the potential fracture zone, and possibly a trail away depending on wind conditions at the time.

What we should not be expecting to see, in my humble opinion, is huge areas of cloud (like Atlantic or country wide). Clouds of that nature would almost certainly be natural aspects of the weather systems and should not be confused with local occurrences of a very much smaller nature. The web site below shows the sort cloud that I would be expecting from water vapour issuing from a potential erruption site, and as you will see these are very different from the pictures that have been posted recently.

Possible earthquake clouds before the Sichuan EQ in 2008. (The site is in Chinese but there some good pics)
shenyun.epochtimes.com...

This site also shows the Sichuan clouds, but the goes on to show the pictures that have been posted in the site.
pinewooddesign.co.uk...

Before continuing I would say the a link off their page pinewooddesign.co.uk... has some amazing pictures taken during the earthquake.

Unfortunately there is no correlation between the clouds photographed at Sichuan and the other ones. I am of the opinion that the other clouds are normal weather formations.

Having said that the 'earthquake clouds' would IMO be local, obviously the prevailing cloud cover might lead one to presume that it is not (local that is). This next site shows clouds, purported to be earthquake clouds, in a dense cloud cover. Note however that the actual disturbed cloud area is 'local'

www.terraresearch.net...

Research has been done on ionospheric disturbances and the pdf file (link below) is very technical in nature but has good picture on page 8. The text associated with the picture being ...

"An upward tornado-type cloud and a horizontal striped cloud similar to airplane vapor trails were observed over the epicenter region in the evening (around +1** JST) on January 3, +33/"

polaris.nipr.ac.jp...

Note again that this cloud is local in nature.

This site earthquakecloud.wordpress.com... shows what in IMHO are NOT EQ clouds, despite the claims on the site. I see these types of clouds very frequently here on the west cloast of Ireland and could show you dozens of photos similar to this that I have taken personally.

I could rattle on and on, but that is enough for the present.

My synopsis would be: There may be links with eqs to clouds; there is some evidence of ionospheric disturbance; eq clouds are local in nature; care should be taken not to confuse natural cloud formations with specific local possible eq clouds. I would not discount earthquake clouds completely, but it does appear that they are relevant to larger earthquakes only.

[edit on 20/1/09 by PuterMan]

reply to post by Wrathier


You are right, it does look more like smoke, it is darker than the normal steam. People have been mentioning how the steam has been looking darker.

reply to post by alysha.angel


It hasn't blown its top because the pressure hasn't been released. It sounds counterintuitive, but as long as the magma chamber stays pressurized, there won't be an eruption. The pressure is what's preventing an eruption. As soon as a crack starts letting the pressure escape, all the gas that's in solution in that magma will come out of solution, and boom.

Let's put it this way (as above, so below, yes?) Take a 3-liter bottle of Sprite and shake it up as much as you can. As long as you don't take that cap off, and as long as the pressure isn't high enough to break the container, there won't be an eruption. The instant you make a crack in the seal, though, it all tries to come fizzing out at once. Suddenly punching a hole in a shook-up Sprite bottle will show you exactly what a volcanic eruption looks like, even if it's a bit smaller.

Now imagine the Sprite bottle is made of rock, with fissures and weak spots and fault lines running all through it, and someone keeps on shaking it without let-up. How long will it last before ALL the pressure tries to escape from that first crack? That depends on two things: the actual pressure level, and the sturdiness of the bottle. When the former overcomes the latter, you get an eruption, and there's no stopping it. Drilling a hole into it, to relieve the pressure, would set off the eruption (just like in the Sprite bottle), because it relieves the pressure. The only thing keeping Yellowstone from erupting is time. The rock will eventually crack somewhere, it will eventually all come spewing out, and it will spew out of every single weak spot all around the caldera because once the pressure skyrockets, all the places that were just barely holding out will fail and split and explode skywards.

And I guess that concludes Eruptions 101. So let's hear no more speculation about drilling holes into it to release some pressure, okay?

reply to post by questioningall


I have a fascination with the paranormal as a potential means to predict earthquakes. Having experienced the majority of the ‘major’ California EQ’s since the 1970’s – no I don’t live there – but the place seems to shake when I visit, I’ve heard first-hand accounts of experiences having the potential to be tied to EQ predictions. Some seem to carry some validity and have potential as indicators but none have significant data support – at least to the standard science abides by. Unfortunately paranormal predictors only come to surface subsequent a ‘large’ event, then slide along not noticed – and seemingly not reported – while thousands of small EQs occur throughout the state. Perhaps human/animal sensitivities are only applicable for detection of events registering greater than 5.0.

Seeing the discussion on clouds repeatedly appear on this thread I can no longer hold myself back. I have looked at a number of reports dealing with EQ clouds and still am unsure as to its reliability, but it is fun fodder for conjecture. There may be something to it but it must be carefully evaluated. I think it requires more inputs then are available from satellite imagery alone, but won’t go there. Earth is very dynamic. There is almost no comprehension or understanding of global scale inputs, particularly as they impact local systems.

From the information I have seen the cloud forms seeming to foretell an EQ are very local in nature. The individual puffs or streams in the cloud system appear to be less than ¼ to ½ km in size on at least one the axis in the majority of images I have seen directly correlated to an earthquake. To make any statement with validity regarding the nature of the clouds I would need to carefully review the high resolution, raw image files which are not made commonly available.

It is therefore highly improbable any continental satellite image has the resolution showing detail appropriate to discern EQ clouds. Continental satellite images are typically of 8 or 16 km resolution in the raw format. They are resized further reducing resolution in most displays, ie, that of the National Weather Service and weather.com. The highest resolution commonly available, albeit typically size reduced on popular sites, is 1 km visible images available from the NWS. These images only cover small portions of the continent – land areas represented being smaller than one western state. On a lucky day this might pick up the detail necessary to display an EQ cloud system.

As has previously been noted in the thread – the images from weather.com are filtered, as they are by the NWS. Brightness is tweaked, contrast is tweaked, they are colourized – to list a few manipulations to the image to make it ‘interesting’ to the masses.

Looking at the weather.com image of the continental US, with a portion of Canada displayed, I must first consider common explanations for what is presented. To me the clouds are indicative of a cold front with high winds aloft pushing down from Hudson’s Bay (probably much further north) in northern Manitoba and Ontario. With a very cold air mass invading from Canada I would expect the moisture in the upper atmosphere to precipitate or condense into wispy clouds at the higher levels. The illustrated spiral of wispy clouds across the continent clearly represents a sizable cold front. I would also expect to see the clouds intensify along features known to enhance condensation – the Rocky Mountains and over the Atlantic in a large swirling pattern covering the Midwest and Eastern US – where physiographic features have enhanced cloud formation. As this simple and brief description models what I am able to physically document in continental measurements I would strongly lean towards this being the correct explanation.

(to be continued)

reply to post by questioningall


(continued)

Considering the large area represented by the provided, low resolution image which depicts something which correlates with measurable conditions I would lean strongly towards this being the correct explanation – oh, right, I already said that. Seeing no immediately discernable anomalies in the cloud structure from the weather.com image I would shy away from an interpretation being an indicator for a sizable earthquake event.

Should I be wrong – there is going to be a very large swarm of massive EQs “in the next while” and there will be no place safe even if nothing blows in Yellowstone or the Cascades, the Aleutians or Chile and all places in between.

From my assumptions I would not interpret the current clouds to reliably present any indication of imminent, sizeable EQ or volcanic activity in Yellowstone. Yellowstone will continue its current trend of frequent small earthquakes, occasional swarms, small geyser eruptions, gurgling springs, and bubbling mud pots that have always fluctuated to some degree – occasionally frighteningly so. Changes in measurable activity will continue, people will have moments of excitement . . .

Hmmmm, Hoping I’m not wrong.

Yes, my interpretation is biased by current paradigm. Kuhn makes a strong case for paradigm shift.

reply to post by questioningall


Noticed that the vid's have no clouds behind it.
The chinese pics have these.

That was really informative.

Have anyone noticed in regards to the clouds rather or not the earthquake has been present when the clouds has been there within short time?

Strange glitch occurred on six different stations:
MCID, YJC, YMC, YML, YMP, YPC

Screenshot from GEE

Also, YTP is experiencing some light spikes. These are real though

EDIT: and US.LKWY now is working again, too.

EDIT2: 800 nanometers spike on YLT. It also shows up on TA.H17A and US.LKWY

EDIT3: Actually it was one near YLT and another one near YLA.

[edit on 2009/1/20 by Shirakawa]

I just pulled up the OF cam and WTH? What is all that dirty stuff on the screen. I have not seen this before, it reminds me of ash. Also, boy is she really putting out some steam. I haven't seen this either since I started watching which was right after the first swarm started.

reply to post by PuterMan

I posted this earlier in the thread someplace...

Seems the USGS is taking note this may possibly provide a way of predicting EQ's in the future

From USGS: Earthquake Lights

Observations of earthquake lights (EQL), mostly white to bluish flashes or glows lasting several seconds associated with moderate to large earthquakes, have been reported infrequently by observers since ancient times. It wasn't until the phenomenon was captured in photographs, taken during the Matsushiro earthquake swarm in Japan between 1965 and 1967, that the seismological community acknowledged their occurrence. A satisfactory theory to explain EQL, however, has been elusive and is still not agreed upon. Proposed mechanisms include piezoelectricity, frictional heating, exoelectron emissions, sonoluminescence, phosphine gas emissions, and fluid injection (electrokinetics), but the most recent theory suggests that EQL are caused by separation of positive hole charge carriers that turn rocks momentarily into p-type semiconductors (first and second references below).

While EQL sightings are often given more exotic labels, they are a recognized geophysical phenomenon that may one day contribute to the possibility of forecasting earthquakes in the few locations where they occur.

USGS

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
Also, boy is she really putting out some steam.

Yes, I was asking myself if it's normal all this activity at Old Faithful. It seems to me that the geyser is constantly erupting. Isn't it supposed to do that about every 90 minutes?

The most rational explanation I can come up with is that it's very cold there, and the steam we're seeing is nothing but condensation of water vapor in the air with hot gasses coming off the geyser.

reply to post by Shirakawa


I thought the same thing, but then what about all the melting snow? Is it caused by an increase in temp. or is OF causing it due to possible increase in steam?Does that make sense?

reply to post by sickofitall2012


I don't think it's due to an increase of ambiental temperature, as at the moment it's 19 degrees F, so it's quite cold and below freezing point. If Old Faithful is really more active than before, then the geyser could be the cause, as more steam means more heat, from both the ground and the steam itself.

reply to post by Shirakawa


Yes, I agree. So, what does that mean? Does anyone know if OF has done this before? I know the geysers are always changing, but OF to this degree? Has the USGS commented on the increase from OF? I can't help but think of a prior image posted here......

www.thehorizonproject.com...

reply to post by sickofitall2012



(Yes, I agree. So, what does that mean? Does anyone know if OF has done this before? I know the geysers are always changing, but OF to this degree? Has the USGS commented on the increase from OF? I can't help but think of a prior image posted here......)

I have been on this thread from day one (lurking) and also viewing the OF cam constantly, I leave it on all day while I go about my business. IMHO just the last week or so the steam looks different its darker and also in the very morning maybe for 3 hours or so the whole place has been very dark covered with dark steam (maybe fog?)and no I have never seen anything on the cam lens (strange)... and in the last couple of days I have noticed there hasn't been any bison maybe I am missing them but just strange. Just a whole lotta steam from every where normally when OF blows they all get a bit active but it looks like they are constantly giving off alot more steam then normal IMO ~peace~

Q. When does Old Faithful erupt?

A. Basic prediction of Old Faithful is dependent upon the duration of the previous eruption. During visitor center hours, geyser statistics and predictions are maintained by the naturalist staff. People speak of the average time between eruptions. This is misleading. The mathematical average between eruptions of Old Faithful is currently 74 minutes, but it doesn't like to act average! Intervals can range from 45-110 minutes. Visitors can check for posted prediction times in most buildings in the Old Faithful area.



Q. How high does Old Faithful erupt and how long will it last?

A. Old Faithful can vary in height from 100-180 feet with an average near 130-140 feet. This has been the historical range of its recorded height. Eruptions normally last between 1.5 to 5 minutes.



Q. I heard Old Faithful isn't as faithful as it used to be. Is it slowing down?

A. It depends on what you call faithful. The famous geyser currently erupts around 20 times a day and can be predicted with a 90 percent confidence rate within a 10 minute variation. Prior to the 1959 earthquake, Old Faithful erupted 21 times per day. That's a significant decrease in activity for geologists tracking each eruption, but to visitors seeing one or two eruptions . . . it looks just fine.


This is what they have posted about eruptions for Old Faithful and timeframes.

Hey!!! I was just watching the OF cam and they focused the cameras on the screen, OF and the background are out of focus, it is as if they are looking at what is on the screen.

I don't like it...it's to quiet...why for did everything cease?
We were doing so good...

It looks like dirty snow to me that is on the camera. I would not worry too much about that.