Whats going on at yellowstone?

reply to post by PuterMan


Absolutly not.. You might see a steady rise, for a time, during spring but it's your hot days in high altitude that you will see a significant sudden increase and that's when you are dealing with glacier melt or perhaps a hard rain but usually up here that just adds to glacier melt..Without the headwaters of a watersystem creating a spike in water level Ive never seen a significant increase from an 'unknown' over any duration of time but I can only compare that to what I've seen here..

I suppose it might be worth throwing out there that permafrost (underground) could influence water levels/runoff.. but in a very, very subtle way..

Originally posted by Shirakawa
reply to post by PuterMan

 

I'm also trying to download another version with smaller earthquakes (with magnitude lower than 1.0), but they take forever to process from the ANSS website.

I just downloaded the quakes above Mag 0 in a few seconds! (I will put the file - a csv - on the site when I have posted this)

I found that it just never happens - within my span of patience - if you try and use the link they give. Whack the address into an ftp program (I use CuteFTP) and it is no problem at all.

[edit on 7/2/2009 by PuterMan]

Morning! Looks like we been busy! Thanks to all of you for speculating on the lake output! I dont think this time of year we should be seeing this increase! With everything froze over we should see the opposite occuring, one would think. Oh well, something to chew on for breakfast! Thanks again!

Recent Yellowstone Quake Swarm Second Most Intense on Record

www.foxnews.com...

More than 800 earthquakes occurred between Dec. 26 and Jan. 8. Many of those quakes were too small to be felt. Even so, University of Utah geophysicist Robert Smith says it was the most intense swarm recorded in Yellowstone since a swarm that rattled the West Yellowstone area in 1985. Smith theorizes the quakes were caused by hydrothermal fluids expanding along a fault zone. A similar event is thought to have caused the 1985 swarm.

Smith said the recent swarm is helping scientists understand how tectonic and volcanic forces can work together during an earthquake, and how earthquakes can interact with one another over long distances.

Scientists wonder, however, how the swarm might affect the park's thermal features.

The earthquakes could even change the routine rise and fall of the Yellowstone Caldera. The caldera, a 37- by 25-mile volcanic feature at the center of the park, rests upon a magma plume that extends roughly 400 miles beneath the Earth's surface.

The 1985 swarm coincided with the start of several years of caldera subsidence. The caldera had been gradually rising for decades before 1985.

reply to post by manotick


There's the fluid thingy at work again! Looks like it may possibly go along with the dying/cooler hot spot theory! The rise and fall of the caldera reminds me of a sleeping giant breathing! LOL. I asked this question to geogeek I believe way back in this thread. Maybe we should start to see a fall of the caldera soon after years of record uplift!?

Edit to add: Of course it is a fox news article!


[edit on 7-2-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom


Actually, it has been rather warm here and so I'm not surprised at all by the water output. People think it's been horribly cold, but it hasn't. All the cold is happening out east. I have friends in New Jersey who are buried in snow and freezing weather, while we're running around in shorts and t-shirt. Although once that moves over here, that'll be a different story.

This article refers to the Plate Boundary Observatory (based in Boulder, Colorado) which last October placed seismic instruments hundreds of feet below the surface of Yellowstone and is now analyzing information from the EQ swarm and its aftermath. The information is sent to Jake Lowenstern and Robert Smith.

The article is well worth a read by everyone monitoring YS.

Here's what they concluded: This recent swarm of quakes amounted to the second biggest swarm in about a half-century of Yellowstone observations. There have been 69 swarms since 1989 alone. And the total amount of energy released in this swarm, says Smith, was the equivalent of just one magnitude 4.5 earthquake.

Listening To The Earth's Belly

www.forbes.com...

reply to post by ekhodust


Ya same here really. It has been a mild winter. We had one good storm early and thats been about it. Just bugs me I can't find out if it's normal or not. But then what IS normal! Especially in YS. It is an awesome and unique place that we learn new things about everyday I'm sure. I usually find the answers I seek eventually, but I wish I could contribute more with them here.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by dodadoom]

And some more articles that have appeared in the past few days


813 Quakes in 11 Days at Yellowstone. (Not to Worry.)

www.nytimes.com...

The above article includes comments by Jacob Lowenstern.

Dr. Lowenstern did grant that having the swarm take place under Yellowstone’s largest lake — more than 300 feet deep — added to the sense of mystery. “If there was a swarm under land, you could easily look for changes in hydrothermal activity — if magma was coming out, you would see it,” he said. “We don’t know if there are changes beneath the lake.” “If we had another swarm in six months, it certainly wouldn’t surprise me,” Dr. Lowenstern said.

Yellowstone activity not precursor to eruption

www.idahopress.com...


Report: Swarm intense


www.jhnewsandguide.com...

I found this in Google Scholar Search and I thought you might find it very interesting. It is a little different from the story the geologist are giving the public.

Randall

www.agu.org... 08%2Ffm08&maxhits=200&="V51D-2067"

2008 Fall Meeting
Search Results Cite abstracts as Author(s) (2008), Title, Eos Trans. AGU,
89(53), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract xxxxx-xx
Your query was:
"V51D-2067"
The selected databases contain one document matching your query:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HR: 0800h
AN: V51D-2067
TI: Seismic Evidence for Dilatational Source Deformation of the Yellowstone Accelerated Uplift Episode
AU: * Taira, T
EM: [email protected]
AF: Berkeley Seismological Laboratory, 215 McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States
AU: Smith, R B
EM: [email protected]
AF: Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, 135 South 1460 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States
AU: Chang, W
EM: [email protected]
AF: Institute of Geophysics, National Central University, No.300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, 32001, Taiwan
AB: Dominant dilatational deformations associated with earthquakes in the area of the 2004-2008 Yellowstone accelerated uplift episode were identified through detailed analysis of moment tensor inversions of two unusual M3+ earthquakes characterized by notable coseismic volumetric changes. Highly pressurized hydrothermal fluids are suggested to be associated with the source processes of these events, which is consistent with the mechanism of the GPS-InSAR derived deformation signal of the above uplift modeled as intrusion of a near horizontal magmatic sill at ~10 km depth beneath the Yellowstone caldera. One of the unusual earthquakes, the 5 November 2007 Mw 3.3 event, occurred near the West Thumb Geyser Basin and was located at the southeast side of the deforming area of the uplift. This unusual event occurred in a volume of expected crustal expansion above the inflating magmatic sill. A notable 60% explosive isotropic source component was determined
for this West Thumb event with a 2.2 cm opening across an area of 0.06 km squared. We propose that the inflation of the magmatic sill activates a high-pressurized fluid migration upward that triggers a dilatational deformation inducing the unusual earthquake. The other earthquake with a dilatational deformation, the 9 January 2008 Mw 3.8 event, occurred on the northern rim of the caldera. The moment tensor solution for this event shows that the source mechanism had a 30% of tensile dislocation corresponding to a 1.2-cm opening crack over an area of 0.5 km squared. The source region of this event appears to be composed of dense micro fractures, inferred from tomographically imaged seismic velocity structure. We also suggest that stress changes produced by a collocated Mw 3.4 earthquake, occurring one week before the unusual event, may have increased the fracture permeability promoting fluid migration and thus encouraging the dilatational (tensile)
dislocation. The dilatational deformations that we detected are very important for hazard mitigation efforts in volcanic fields because such deformations may eventually cause hydrothermal explosions that are considered to be a serious volcanic hazard. These explosive-source earthquakes are the first to be observed in the 35 year recording period of the Yellowstone seismic network.
DE: 7215 Earthquake source observations (1240)
DE: 7280 Volcano seismology (8419)
DE: 8135 Hydrothermal systems (0450, 1034, 3017, 3616, 4832, 8424)
DE: 8419 Volcano monitoring (7280)
DE: 8488 Volcanic hazards and risks
SC: Volcanology, Geochemistry, Petrology [V]
MN: 2008 Fall Meeting


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


New

Gee whizkers! What a mix of conclusions a person could draw from the experts! There's no reason to think an eruption could happen BUT.....
IF one did it would only be HYDROTHERMAL! WHATWAZAT?
Did I get that right?! Oops sorry dont mean to hog the thread AND yell at ya all!
I feel alot better hangin out with you guys and my boogie board 4 sure!
Interesting articles! Thanks!
I didn't know there is usually a(small?)hydrothermal explosion once a year in YS!
Holy Moly!

Apparently now the only questions are: how big of one do we need to worry about and when!



[edit on 7-2-2009 by dodadoom]

Thanks to all for your continued efforts to keep recent events at Yellowstone on everyone's radar. The data presentations I've seen here are high quality and likely to be integral in the struggle to keep us (the public) informed, and to keep those at YVO and beyond accountable and on their toes!

I am a long-time reader of this thread, and obviously a first-time responder. My background is in the laboratory (research in the biological sciences), so data collection and interpretation are an everyday part of my job. Though I want to state emphatically for the record...I am not a geologist.

With regard to the Real-Time Water Data at Yellowstone River at YS Lake Output (Station YNP), I agree with previous posters that this set of data is one of the most significant posted on the YVO website to date. a 60 day data selection for the discharge parameter is extremely telling! There is an absolute departure from the mean beginning right at December 27th - the start of the first swarm. Futhermore, after reviewing previous postings surmising that temperature and seasonal environmental conditions are at play here, please take another look at the data. There is a 72 year mean for EACH day (denoted by the little beige triangles)! This means that outside conditions like temperature and the variations that occur year-to-year for these conditions are already taken into consideration. A 72 year mean (average) is HUGE in understanding how significant this new upward trend and deviation from that mean is! To say it is has been a little warmer isn't quite enough. Temperature readings would have to be trending to a very high percentile and an extreme deviation from normal seasonal temp readings EACH and EVERY DAY since the end of December for outside temperature to be the cause of this trend. This is not likely, and there are 72 years of historical data for each day to support my doubt about this reasoning. It would be even more unlikely that this sudden weird outside temperature trend exactly paralleled the timing of the swarm onset. In addition, taking into consideration the fact that this one particular station, with this sudden departure from normal readings, is precisely located right where the swarm occured! I just don't believe in coincidences.

Now that I have all of that out, let's not get carried away. Just because these facts are correlated, does not mean that a causal relationship exists. It could be that the guage was damaged due to the swarm. However, it would be funny/strange how such damage could result in only a consistant UPWARD trend rather than demonstrating readings that are all over the place. And, since I would think that the data at THIS station (YNP) would be of particular importance to YVO, it doesn't seem likely that they would not fix the guage! I'm sure that they MUST collect important and accurate data at this this station in their effort to accurately measure the effects of the swarm!

Hmmmm...there are many more questions than answers here. Barring informative discussion and input from someone at YVO or USGS to explain the anomoly at YNP, or an outside expert on hydrologic readings, we may stay in the dark on this.

I would be very curious to hear Lisa Morgan's thoughts on this matter since her research was focused on this area of uplift under the lake. It is strange that no one has heard from her regarding the recent activity since this all seems right down her alley.

Any and all questions/comments are welcome.
Thanks again to all for your dilligence here.
Jenny

Map of real-time streamflow compared to historical streamflow for the day of the year (Wyoming)

water.usgs.gov...

water.usgs.gov...

This Looks to fit into recent discussions...once again sorry if it's a repost...

[edit on 2/7/2009 by Hx3_1963]

[edit on 7/2/09 by fox_3000au]

Looks like ice is having an effect on accurate readings based on the last one taken on the 13 of last month and it was rated poor. Although GH change was .09.
waterdata.usgs.gov...

Am I reading these even close? Thanks for your help HX3 and all!
I noticed most of the hydrographs in the park are not working accurately enough to tell and show to be ice affected. Correct? Just wanted to be sure. Call me slooooow.


Edited to add: Everything looks fairly normal at least from nearby outflow measurements taken? Is that a fair statement? Thanks for puttin up with yours truly.


[edit on 7-2-2009 by dodadoom]

Supervolcano Yellowstone Lake Inflated Plain "Bulge" Clip 1
www.youtube.com...

Supervolcano Yellowstone Lake Inflated Plain "Bulge" Clip 2
www.youtube.com...

I hadn't seen these before, but, my memorys not all it used to be...


History Channel Mega Disasters - Yellowstone Eruption Part 1
www.youtube.com...

History Channel Mega Disasters - Yellowstone Eruption Part 2
www.youtube.com...

All for yer viewing pleasure on a dull boring Saturday...

anyone ever see or here of a Google Earth v5 "Underlay" for Yellowstone Lake Topography...

[edit on 2/7/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by dodadoom

Thanks to all for your continued efforts to keep recent events at Yellowstone on everyone's radar. The data presentations I've seen here are high quality and likely to be integral in the struggle to keep us (the public) informed, and to keep those at YVO and beyond accountable and on their toes!

I am a long-time reader of this thread, and obviously a first-time poster.
so please forgive in advance any oversights in posting ettiquette. My background is in lab research, so data collection and interpretation are an everyday part of my job. (Though I want to state emphatically for the record...I am not a geologist).

With regard to the Real-Time Water Data at Yellowstone River at YS Lake Output (Station YNP), I agree with previous posters that this set of data is something to keep an eye on. Actually, I believe the discharge graphs contain the most significant information posted on the YVO website to date.

Don't be misled by the manual measurement on the 13th, which by it's own account, reports poor conditions for a human or manual measurement.The 60 day data selection for the discharge and guage reading parameters at YNP are extremely telling. There is an abrupt departure from the mean beginning right at December 27th - the start of the first swarm.

www.waterdata.usgs.gov

Furthermore, regarding the previous postings surmising that temperature and seasonal environmental conditions are at play here, I urge everyone to take another look at the data. There is a 72 year mean for each day (denoted by the little beige triangles). This means that outside conditions like temperature and ice flow and their year-to-year, season-to-season, and day-to-day variations are already taken into consideration.

A 72 year mean (average) is HUGE in understanding how significant this new upward trend and deviation from the norm really is. To say it is has been a little warmer isn't quite enough. Temperature readings would have to be trending to a very high percentile and deviate extremely from normal seasonal temp readings each and every day since the end of December for outside temperature to be the cause of this trend. Likewise, it would have to be ice jammed significantly greater than it has normally ever been for ice to be the culprit. These scenerios seem unlikely to me.

It would be even more unlikely that this sudden weird outside temperature trend or ice flow exactly paralleled the timing AND the location of the swarm onset....And let's just sayI just don't believe in coincidences.

Now that I have all of that out, let's not get carried away. Just because these facts are correlated, does not mean that a causal relationship exists. It could be that the gauge was damaged due to the swarm. However, it would be funny/strange how such damage could result in only a consistent UPWARD trend rather than demonstrating readings that are all over the place. And, since I would think that the data at THIS station (YNP) would be of particular importance to YVO, it doesn't seem likely that they would not fix the gauge! I'm sure that they MUST collect important and accurate data at this specific location in their effort to accurately measure the effects of the swarm!

Hmmmm...there are many more questions than answers here. Barring informative discussion and input from someone at YVO or USGS to explain the anomaly at YNP, or an outside expert on hydrologic readings; we may stay in the dark on this. I would be very curious to hear Lisa Morgan's thoughts on this matter since her research was focused on this particular area of uplift under the lake. It is strange that no one has heard from her regarding the recent activity since this all seems right down her alley.
Comments?

reply to post by jennyj


I'm wondering if there's inflow from under the lake...the majority of the swarm is from south of the fissures feature on the lake bottom, up past stevenson Island, to the outlet graben feature and inflated plain. there are some faults/features that might of microfractured into lower springs/water table? Hopefully they'll do another Lake Bottom Survey this Spring/Summer. Could heating at the bottom of the lake expand the water volume enough to increase outflow? I just hope it doesn't lose to much volume...the waters mass/weight might be the only thing keeping something corked.

i618.photobucket.com...


[edit on 2/7/2009 by Hx3_1963]