Whats going on at yellowstone?

reply to post by sueloujo
I just gave it a try and as of 14:00 hrs (UTC) it's still inaccessible. Just won't connect. I tried accessing the webcam and got an "address not found" message. So it's possible that the server is down for some reason.

Mike

reply to post by JustMike


Thankyou for that!

Much appreciated

Just stopped in the say I'm still watching.
Relocating all of my stuff on the web, for reinstall has been a PITA.
I'm not sure what to make of the relative quite in Yellowstone, though I expect we'll see something once Redoubt goes off.
The visible steam plume there is interesting.

M.

Liquidification of sedimentary deposits is a factor that could lead to more earthquakes. As deposits are cleared away, this leaves more free flow of water to circulate through the aquifer. The added pressure will allow further sedimentary explusion. Like spraying a muddy spot and once it is saturated, it moves away freely. This process was happening during the swarm. Is the pressure of the water flowing through the park enough to move faults again? Faults which have had five years of uplift. Could this lead to a subsidence as it has before after a swarm? The faults are all washed out now and can settle back down from whence they came. In 1985 that late November, something relieved the pressure and the swelling retreated. But are the conditions now the same as 1985. This past swarm is only second to the one in 1985. But that swarm did not migrate. "A likely cause of the 1985 earthquake swarm, according to scientists, was the rupture of a widespread layer of impermemable rock (through which fluids cannot pass) above the magma reservoir. The rupture of this rock layer allowed pressurized hyrdo-thermal fluids (hot water solutions) to move upward and laterally out of the caldera and into an adjacent network of fractures over a period of many weeks. As fluids pushed through this network, cracks were opened and adjacent rocks were broken, resulting in several thousand small quakes. At the same time, according to this model, the lateral escape of fluids through the impermeable layer dramatically decreased the upward pressure normally exerted by the hydrothermal system beneathe the caldera, resulting in subsidence there. " USGS

Since the epicenter was the lake. And if you use the model provided for us by the USGS. The bottom of the lake may have fracture and this could be lead to ground water escaping through the impermiable layer and into lake. And maybe vice versa. What is water was flowing from the lake and into the groundwater. This would push more water upward and laterally. Hot water from the geyers system is venting from known locations already and the pressure may have greatly increased. In fact due to a full aquifer after a protracted La Nina that start early "08, the park's water table is fully charged. Water is going in every direction, and at every temperature. If the swarm liquidified the sedimentary deposits and blasted the plumbing clean. With a full and charged water table, Yellowstone may not have seen it's last swarm this spring. The park has undergone changes no doubt, and some of these changes may have yet to manifest themselves and once they do, they could effect their own dynamic of change on the Yellowstone. All I can say, is in my gut, I know this show any over and act II may begin at any time.
Oh I haven't forgot about the magma. Magma has been shown to cause swarm earthquakes. So there may be more than one force at work.
Water will flow upward and laterally. This would eventually flow back down into the lake and effect levels and outflows.
If the moon effects the groundwater enough to cause substaintial flucuations and restrictions, causing a surging, pumping action, this could lead to more instability and earthquake swarms.
The question to ask is, How much water is in the park? And is it finished it's work this year. I was always taught water was a powerful erosive force. Grand Caynon. How much erosion and change is happening where we can't see it? Is the underwater rivers, undermining the roof of the caldera? Could this cause a cave-in, a partial roof collapse and trap gas? Could this then erupt in the most destructive way? Why not? And scientists may not see dramatic hydro-thermal changes neccesarily. With the watertable so full and cold, itcould be keeping a lid on the geyer's temperature's and preventing any hydro-thermal eruptions. No one knows the precursors. No ones ever witnessed a Super Volcano erupting.

www.boloji.com...
[edit on 9-2-2009 by Robin Marks]

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Robin Marks]

FYI- not a single of the 9 USGS officials I e-mailed responded to my inquiry about harmonic tremor. Your tax dollars at work ...

Here's what I think about everything right now. The 15 Minutes of Fame are over, and some people are trying to beat a dead horse. While most have moved on, some are still trying. But, at the same time, it's awesome to see other alternatives keep popping up and things that usually get left behind or overlooked are now being into perspective. But, this is all just imho.

Originally posted by rigel434
FYI- not a single of the 9 USGS officials I e-mailed responded to my inquiry about harmonic tremor. Your tax dollars at work ...

Some of these people are getting inundated with emails, and not by any means all from members of ATS and readers of this thread. I will quote from an email I recieved from one of the organisation (as a CC) on 5th Feb. I am afraid I have to break the rules on quoting the source in this instance as the email was not directly sent to me.

We all have more important things to do. Having said that, I am no longer going to answer questions on these. ............ I'm going to focus on deciphering some natural signals instead. Far more interesting and relevant.

This is not knocking you for sending the request, but by way of a possible explanation as to why you did not get a reply.

reply to post by Robin Marks

Liquidification of sedimentary deposits is a factor that could lead to more earthquakes.

As I understand it this is an effect of earthquakes rather than a cause, similar to the methods used to remove air from concrete during curing by introducing vibration.

The faults are all washed out now and can settle back down from whence they came.

Would you are to quote the reference from whence this was obtained? Has a CCTV survey of the faults be carried out?

"A likely cause of the 1985 earthquake swarm, according to scientists, was the rupture of a widespread layer of impermemable rock (through which fluids cannot pass) above the magma reservoir. The rupture of this rock layer allowed pressurized hyrdo-thermal fluids (hot water solutions) to move upward and laterally out of the caldera.............dramatically decreased the upward pressure normally exerted by the hydrothermal system beneath the caldera, resulting in subsidence there. " USGS

You do not quote your source for this, although I am not disagreeing with it.

The bottom of the lake may have fracture and this could be lead to ground water escaping through the impermiable layer and into lake. And maybe vice versa. What is water was flowing from the lake and into the groundwater. This would push more water upward and laterally. Hot water from the geyers system is venting from known locations already and the pressure may have greatly increased.

Apart from the fact that you are suggesting the opposite of what the USGS is saying, I am not aware of significant changes in the geysers that would suggest this.

In fact due to a full aquifer after a protracted La Nina that start early "08, the park's water table is fully charged.

La Niña causes mostly the opposite effects of El Niño, for example, El Niño would cause a wet period in the Midwestern U.S., while La Niña would typically cause a dry period in this area.

en.wikipedia.org...

If the swarm liquidified the sedimentary deposits and blasted the plumbing clean.

I think you are misunderstanding liquefaction.

V.K.Joshi states in the article you quoted.

The layers of strata in the sub-surface carry films of water between the sand layers known as groundwater. The shaking earth causes liquefaction of sand layers. Groundwater present in these layers aids in liquefaction of the sand layers. The liquefied sand moves to surface through weak planes like the toothpaste coming out of the tube and often cuts across the rocks as Sand Dykes.

This is not quite the same as 'blasting the plumbing clean'. Liquefaction can cause massive landslides as the earth becomes fluid, but that is not the same as high pressure spraying. In fact quite the opposite as the sand fills the cracks.

Water will flow upward and laterally. This would eventually flow back down into the lake and effect levels and outflows.

A neat little closed system them, out at the bottom and back in at the top. Should keep it all in balance.

No one knows the precursors. No ones ever witnessed a Super Volcano erupting.

In this respect I have to agree with you!!


[edit on 10/2/2009 by PuterMan]

Originally posted by PuterMan

Some of these people are getting inundated with emails, and not by any means all from members of ATS and readers of this thread. I will quote from an email I recieved from one of the organisation (as a CC) on 5th Feb. I am afraid I have to break the rules on quoting the source in this instance as the email was not directly sent to me.

That's why I included all 9 USGS employees who worked on the 2007 Yellowstone report- I had to dig to find most of their e-mails and I doubt that most of them have received a single e-mail from the public.

Regardless, I'm not taking it personally- my concern is that their silence means that they don't have a good answer to my question. Just look at these December 29, 2008 readings:

December 29

That would have to be the mother of all windstorms, and yet we're supposed to believe that a windstorm like that stuck around for *6 DAYS* in one location and that this windstorm just happened to coincide both geographically and temporally exactly with the largest earthquake swarm in recent decades at Yellowstone?

In the northern hemisphere during winter, the jet stream keeps the kind of low pressure systems that can cause extreme wind moving at a rapid pace. I could accept that these kind of extreme wind storms could occur on one or maybe two days. But six straight days? It's just not plausible, and no one at USGS bothered to tell me otherwise so it seems like they aren't willing to defend that story.

reply to post by rigel434


Hey, I am agreeing with you! All I was trying to offer was a reason why you may not have had a reply! Don't shoot the messenger!!!

[edit on 10/2/2009 by PuterMan]

Ok, good news guys- I did some digging myself and it now appears that it was, in fact, wind causing the harmonic-type readings at Yellowstone.

This website contains archived weather data for Yellowstone, and it does, in fact, show a wind storm during the 6-day period in question. Here is the data for December 29, 2008- you can look at subsequent days and see windstorms correlating with the seismic readings at Mary Lake:

December 29 weather

Looking back at the wind data in prior months, the strongest windstorm prior to the late December/early January one took place in Yellowstone Park on November 13, 2008.

November 13 weather

looking at the archived Mary Lake seismic readings for that date shows seismic activity very similar to that observed in late December/early January:

November 13 Mary Lake seismic info

I go where the data leads me and the data says my hunch was wrong and the USGS was right. Chalk one up for the good guys. It really was bad luck that such a lengthy windstorm coincided exactly with the week-long series of earthquakes at Yellowstone - caused a lot of needless worry.

Of course, 900 earthquakes in a week above the world's biggest supervolcano is a bit worrisome itself, but far less so than if harmonic tremor had been present.

reply to post by PuterMan


Dear Puterman,

I thank you for motivating me to do my homework. Let's start with USGS source on the cause of '85 and 08/09.

pubs.usgs.gov...

www.jhguide.com...

I said in my piece that liquidification was ongoing as the swarm occured because it is caused by earthquakes. I've stated the the absence of the sedimentary layer due to liquidification would be a factor for future quakes. The void would be filled with high pressure, high temperature water. Without the grit and friction of the sedimentary layer, the faults could be (could be, because there is debate about whether or not water acts as a lubricant and speeds up faulting, or it may slow quakes with a suction like effect, holding them together. hell, both could happen for different reasons.) The reduced sedimentary layers could provide more room for trapping water as in the geyers building process. I believe the...

I'll get to the point of subsidence. From whence they came. If like in 85, there is subsidence after the swarm. The faulting will settle back down to nearly it's original positon. I was just speculating on what would happen if a subsidence follows the swarm event.

There may be hydro-thermal changes that may have already taken place and are hidden by the snow. Mud holes. And the changes may be under the lake itself, and if I'm correct, that is under a sheet of ice. I love the name of that report, "The floor of Yellowstone lake is anything but quiet." The hydro-thermal activity in Robert Smith's scenario would have the ground water coming up through the many vents already in existence. The rupture may be allowing greater quanities to come up through the known fracture in the lake. Isn't the fracture the Huckleberry rim that runs south to north in the north end of the lake? My scenario would have the lake entering the aquifer because of it's mass acting as the dominate pressure. In fact both things may be occuring. Cold heavy water is forced down past hot thermal ground water. Hell I don't know. I just know there's a lot going on down there and no one has a submersible and is montioring the situation. Robert Smith lives in Utah. And the geo's that are watching this are in Utah. Jake Lowenstern is in California. I'd like to talk to anyone who's been on a walk about to observe. And I wonder if it's even possibleto make observations. I looked up the local weather early on, they had over three feet then. It came early. And the grandual nature of the early snow has made a marble layer and is causing lots of avalanches in the mountains of Western North America. The patterns of La Nina are variable. And this protracted event has brought heavy snows to Yellowstone in 08. The summer '08 was cool and wet. This year has seen early and significant snow in Yellowstone with cold temperatures. Not record setting, but colder than previous years.

www.pbs.org...

www.bloomberg.com...

wolves.wordpress.com...

www.jacksonholenews.com...

I threw in the Indian geo article as a mental reference point mostly.
If the pressue of water is internal, it will push out material like it does with mud holes. The temp and pressure under Yellowstone would make it a more dynamic example than in India. When water is washed into a system, then the sediment will fill cracks. But when blown out from within, it's a pressure washer. The movement will be lateral and upward, and yes once it's surfaced, will run down into the lake. An almost self-contained system. Not all the water is running back into the lake. This system is as unbalanced as I am. And that's saying a lot. But at least, it's fully charged and fully dynamic.

Utah professor to talk about Yellowstone quakes


Associated Press - February 7, 2009 12:55 PM ET
BOZEMAN, Mont. (AP) - University of Utah geophysicist Robert B. Smith is scheduled to talk about Yellowstone National Park's earthquake and volcanic activity on Feb. 19.
The talk is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. at Bozeman's Emerson Cultural Center. The event is free and sponsored by Montana State University.
Smith will discuss the most recent swarm of about 1,000 earthquakes centered near Yellowstone Lake and will share his knowledge and research about what is happening far beneath the earth's surface in Yellowstone National Park.

Edit to add some links because we sure wouldn't trust anybodys word!
Plus I like the one guys comment at this first site!
www.missoulian.com...
www.montanasnewsstation.com...

Good job Jason, Robin, Puterman and all!


[edit on 10-2-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom


He you guys,

Still here and reading along!!

So who's gonna go to the Bozeman's Emerson Cultural Center?? Take a camcorder with you and post it on youtube....that would be great!!!

Keep up the good work.....!!!

reply to post by PuterMan


Dear Puterman,

I must add, by coincidence rigel's research shows that Yellowstone was quite stormy for a period.
The years '08 and '09 have had above average for precipitation in parts of Canada and the U.S., and this shows the La Nina is situated so that it's bringing moisture and cooler temps to the region of Yellowstone. I live in Canada just north of Minnesota. I have noticed the effects of La Nina here as well. No forest fires to speak of last summer. And the lake's back up to normal levels. Never saw the river so high. The reason for the high output of Yellowstone lake in June (I think) is a result of massive spring run offs. Spring was late in coming and fall came early. That pattern here has been the same as Yellowstone's. La Nina is a female, she can always change her mind as to where she's going. It's a female's preogative. I say this with all due respect to the better, sweeter, sex of species.




[edit on 10-2-2009 by Robin Marks]

I sent follow-up e-mails to the USGS and got nice responses from Drs. Lowenstern and Smith. I told them I'd post their responses here so here is Dr. Lowenstern's response:

Jason,

Thanks for your further findings. We indeed were going to answer
you and I will send you more information in a week or so (I too head
out on leave tomorrow).

No seismologists came to us and thought we were looking at tremor.
Of course, Bob Smith is a seismologist and leads our observatory
seismology program. He was in Jackson, WY during most of the holiday
period experiencing the weather and also staying glued to his
computer (and phone) to deal with the swarm. He is very aware of
which stations are most prone to wind noise.

One other thing to consider: though detection of tremor would have
heightened our concern, hydrothermal systems on their own can produce
tremor. Think about what it's like when a geyser goes off. Water is
rushing through cracks. Tremor can also be observed from
hydrothermal sources on dormant volcanoes. In fact, there is a whole
study of tremor at Old Faithful published about ten years ago (Kedar
et al., v. 103, p. 24283 of Journal of Geophysical Research). Any
localized hydrothermal tremor at Yellowstone is way too low in
amplitude to be recorded at more than one station. And we also try
and keep our seismic stations away from noisy background sources like
geyser basins. My point here, though, is that observing tremor
doesn't require that the volcano is about to blow up. There is
tremor, AND THEN there is TREMOR... The TV documentaries are a bit
deceiving. Yes, tremor does occur during the buildup to volcanic
eruptions, and during the eruptions themselves, but it can also occur
without the presence of magma and it can simply mean that fluids are
moving through cracks... something that happens a lot at
Yellowstone. We've recently seen proposals to study the seismic
signals of geysers and hydrothermal systems and over the coming
years, some of those studies will occur and we'll learn more about
the kinds of seismic signals generated within the hydrothermal areas
at Yellowstone during normal activity.


Best regards,

Jake Lowenstern, USGS

And here is Dr. Smith's reply:

Jason:

It is not that we did not get your message but a complete answer
regarding wind generated noise and seismic noise takes some time answer.
And we are all on travel right now.

By the way I experienced the high winds during that 10 day bad weather
just south of Yellowstone and the seismic data looked much like the same
noise that I had seen in my past experience.

In the meantime, a seismological explanation is as follows:

Wind is a surface disturbance that couples the atmosphere to the ground
with both the localized wind and atmospheric waves across the solid-gas
interface creating surface dispersive waves.

This generates various types of seismic signals and therefore waves.
These are generally called air-coupled surface waves that are dominantly
SH Love and Rayleight wave modes and a dispersive i.e. velocity is
frequency dependent, unlike P and S body wave that we commonly interpret
for earthquake studies.

For example the 7 sec surface waves commonly seen on our instruments,
and lots of the time called noise, come from sea wave-shore interactions
on the west coat that propagate across the west. Shorter period waves
have local sources but they can by tens of km away depending on local
site conditions. Then we have local microburst-thunderstorm winds
coupling with the ground.
Given the wind and all other surface waves propagate a ~ s wave velocity
and they are dispersive and their wavetrains are complex with various
periods traveling at different velocities. For normal dispersion, the
long periods first and therefore dominate the signal.

Also the class of infrasound waves is becoming of more common interest.
Infrasound is just acoustic waves propagated in the high atmosphere at
acoustic frequencies. These wave are used to discriminate nuclear from
natural earthquake sources.

And of course there is human made noise at some of our seismic stations
such as from vehicles near stations such as Madison Canyon, garbage
trucks at Mammoth, water pumps at Lake and Old Faithful, the Upper and
Lower falls of the Yellowstone River, seen during heavy river flow at
YUF, and there waves from onshore interaction at stations near
Yellowstone Lake, etc.

Mary Lake is a remote site and should not course have such noise but is
high on a hill and exposed to heavy winds.

Regards and thanks for your interest.

Bob Smith

Here's my reply I sent to them:

Thanks for the informative reply, Dr. Lowenstern (and Dr. Smith). You are correct about the (pretty entertaining) BBC documentary being the cause of my worries- that Scottish actor made it seem like harmonic tremor was a sure-fire sign of an impending eruption. I recall looking at the harmonic-type readings on the live seismograms in early January and thinking that the TV news was going to break in any moment with news of an evacuation order. It was actually pretty scary, and I usually don't buy into these internet scare stories.

If you can't trust the BBC who can you trust?

Regards,

Jason

- end quote -

Once again, it's nice of the USGS Yellowstone head guys to take the time to write these detailed replies. At this point, I don't think anyone has any reason to suspect them of being anything other than upfront. Everything they have said during this latest incident has checked out.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by rigel434]

Awesome posts guys! Btw, we're finally getting snow, so that might effect some of the water output. It may have been cold (or REALLY warm at some points.... lol) but the snow has been kinda non-existant. I've seen a lot more and this winter has been pretty dry. But, snow is coming! YAY! lol

reply to post by rigel434


Brilliant. Well done for sticking at it!

Line numebr 2!!