Whats going on at yellowstone?

A large herd of Bison is walking in front of the Old Faithful camera right now, about two or three dozen. They are just slowly passing through the place visitors watch Old Faithful. Now heading towards cabins and parking area.

If the current pattern for the quakes registering on LKWY continues, there should be another one approximately 22:00 local, 05:00 UTC. If there is another quake measuring 1.5+ just north of the lake in the next couple of hours, well, you get it. Mary Lake is also showing some interesting displays. There was no real wind to talk about from the weather network. Interesting stuff. The water level has crept hit over 600 cfs at some points at the outlet of Yellowstone Lake. Does anyone know how many dams there are on the rivers which flow out of Yellowstone? I know there's one on the Madison. There's one thing that has changed about Yellowstone in the last hundred years, the watertable. Damming the Madison changed the landscape. And so did the quake in 1959 when the landslide created another dam. A natural dam and a new lake. I've really tried hard to ignore the webicorders at Yellowstone. Really. In fact I've found a new obssesion in hopes of distracting myself. It's called Whizball. I discovered it on Discovery for kids. My five year old loves it and so do I. Try it.

kids.discovery.com...

It's kinda like how I see a Yellowstone eruption happening. Just another series of events.

Here's a link for some Yellowstone history tidbits. My favorite part is a common theme in science and discovery which the history proves. No one believed the first European witnesses who spoke of what they saw. There could not be such a place. They could not understand what they could not conceive. They could not see.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by Robin Marks]

[edit on 25-2-2009 by Robin Marks]

Oh, why the politics!?!

After President Obama's speech on the economy last night, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal criticized government spending in the stimulus bill, citing examples including "$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring

news.yahoo.com...

just posting to get to the end of the forum!

Is this all really so strange, should we be so worried?
Or is this just the natural history of yellowstone?

Whats going on at yellowstone?


Um not much, think its just another paranoid section about a geological occurrence that you have absolutely no way of controlling. Oh yes, if it was going to erupt , the last place i would want to be is, on the internet and posting a comment.

reply to post by tristar


Nobody wants to control the eruption.
We're just observing the situation with scientific eyes.

Firstly well said Shirakawa. I cannot recall anywhere in this thread anyone saying that they wanted to control the erruption! As if we could anyway!

Yes it's the natural geology of Yellowstone and it is a fascinating subject, and in the absence of anywhere else to study it (for me at least) where better to study than on the Internet? If it was going critical that is just EXACTLY where I would be to get the latest and up to date information.

And so to my reason for posting....

I came across this:

Yellowstone Park Emits Tons of Carbon Dioxide, Study Finds

Published: December 26, 1997

Hot springs and other thermal features at Yellowstone National Park vent millions of tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide each year, more than a typical industrial power plant, researchers from Pennsylvania State University have found.

Industrial smokestacks are normally seen as the prime suspects for the increase of carbon dioxide levels, but hot spring systems like Yellowstone's produce enough carbon dioxide that they, too, should be considered when the world tallies its carbon dioxide emissions, the researchers said.

Cindy Werner, a geoscience graduate student at Penn State, spent much of last summer sampling gases emerging from thermal vents, mud pots and adjacent ground in Yellowstone's Mud Volcano area. Much of the carbon dioxide appeared to escape along fault lines running through the area.

Ms. Werner and Prof. Susan Brantley of Penn State calculate that Yellowstone's thermal regions annually vent millions of tons of carbon dioxide.

They presented their results last week in a special session on Yellowstone at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Ms. Werner and her colleagues found that Yellowstone's Mud Volcano area produced about 176,300 tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Loosely expanding those figures based on the park's underlying geology, they suggest that each year the entire park may emit about 44 million tons of carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless and incombustible gas.

By contrast, a medium-sized power plant that burns fossil fuels is estimated to release 4.4 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.

''We believe that geothermal systems are significant contributors to global estimates'' of carbon dioxide, Ms. Werner said.

Carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere have increased to more than 350 parts per million today from 290 parts per million in 1890. Most of the blame for the increase has focused on the burning of fossil fuels and a widespread loss of tropical forests that, when healthy, recycle the gas into oxygen.

Many scientists believe that global temperatures will rise because increasing levels of carbon dioxide will trap and retain heat from the Sun in a process similar to what happens in a greenhouse. Such a warming trend could lead to rising sea levels, cause severe drought and storms and severely disrupt Earth's biological systems.

Scientists have long known that volcanic systems like the one that drives Yellowstone emit large amounts of carbon dioxide along with their heat. But there have been few efforts to measure the gas emissions of geothermal systems not associated with volcanoes that have erupted in modern times.

The Penn State scientists focused on the Mud Volcano area because its features are primarily gas-driven. They do not produce the prodigious amounts of water that flow from the park's main hot-spring basins.

Gases emerging from vents in the area also include high levels of helium-3, a helium isotope present in Earth's mantle but not its atmosphere.

The helium-3 at Mud Volcano suggests that the heat that keeps the area simmering has taken a relatively direct course from the mantle to the surface.

Source: query.nytimes.com...

This is something I have always been aware of, and as the author says, these facts are not included in the global figures. The Mea Culpa brigade would do well to study these factors before bemoaning our fate. (Before jumping on me let me say that I am NOT saying we should not reduce emissions - of course we should - but not for the false reasons so often quoted)

Forgot to add: This was the bit I wanted to highlight.

The helium-3 at Mud Volcano suggests that the heat that keeps the area simmering has taken a relatively direct course from the mantle to the surface. (Source as above)

[edit on 26/2/2009 by PuterMan]

Excuse me, but perhaps i was not clear enough, do you have any idea on the amount of deaths and the repercussions such an explosion would have on the U.S. , Canadian, Mexico region, i dare not even attempt to touch the deaths that would result across Europe and Asia as major crop failures would result in famine stricken regions. To add, many scientists across the globe have said thats its only a matter of time. When such an event was to happen the domino effect would be of epic proportions. I would not think that from the comfort of your home or office you will be excluded. This is what i was pointing out.

reply to post by tristar


I have to take issue with you with regard to your statement that this is 'just another paranoid section'.

IF you have read all 440 pages of this thread excluding this one, you will have surely noticed that the main posters on this thread are far from paranoid

Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. In the original Greek, pa?????a (paranoia) simply means madness (para = outside; nous = mind). Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state.

en.wikipedia.org...


1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.
2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged

paranoid
adjective 1. (Informal) suspicious, worried, nervous, fearful, apprehensive, antsy (informal)
adjective 2. obsessive, disturbed, unstable, manic, neurotic, mentally ill, psychotic, deluded, paranoiac

www.thefreedictionary.com...

It is my opinion that, on this thread at least, the contributors are driven for the most part by a desire to learn and to undestand the phenomena of Yellowstone. Some of the theories at time may appear 'wild' but I do not believe that contributions to this thread could in any way be described as 'paranoid'.

reply to post by tristar


Thankx for the input Tristar but i guess we've gone over this topic about ohhh 400 pages back and i still enjoy my daily visit to this thread to hear from the in-house geological experts which they have become by now on what's the current status.

peace

Ps: nicely put, Puterman. I 100% agree with that. And lets not forget the civil manner in which everybody is communicating in this thread!!!!!

[edit on 26/2/2009 by operation mindcrime]

This is what concerns me most, when this erupts, i can assure you that on my list to do's, trying to find data over the web prior to the event will not even be a priority.





[edit on 26-2-2009 by tristar]

Why are we still out here talking about Yellowstone? Geez, the swarm happened almost two months ago. And why is it important if we can't do anything about it? Why do we waste our time trying to understand what's happening at Yellowstone?
Well, it's still a hot topic. Last night, on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, Bobby Jindal's reponse to a spending increase for volcano monitoring was mocked. And rightly so. The geologists at the YVO are quietly begging for more money and it is obvious they need it. The equipment is outdated and malfunctioning. It has caused debate out here because the monitoring station at the epicenter of the swarm has missing periods of data and anomalous readings.
And I respect the work done by those who continue to do their math homework. We are discussing the water levels in Yellowstone Lake as well as watching the activity. After all, it's an active volcano. The emphasis on active. In scientific terms it is almost alive. Forget the fact that there is no cellular component, and Yellowstone becomes an animated phenomenon to be watched and studied. That's what many of those here are doing. That's science. It's the act of observation and collecting changing data, and interperating that information. I have real empathy for the geologists at Redoubt who are scratching their heads. These damn volcanoes are so unpredictable. We are still in the early stages of understanding how they function. It wasn't that long ago that we didn't even know that Yellowstone was a supervolcano. Christiansen discovered the extent of the caldera in the 1960's and 70's. Scientists have recently been able to model the magma chamber using the data they've collected. So science is still making new discoveries about the volcano. Robert Smith earlier this month stated the water temps in the north end of the lake have risen substaintially. That's something to watch and something to be concerned about.
During the last few days I've been trying to think of how I would like to admit my prediction, which I posted here, has not come to pass. But everytime I was about to throw in the towel, another small quake would appear in my target zone. And last night the LKWY started showing regular activity. I made a stab at predicting one and it failed, it's in my posting at the top of the page. And this morning there was another one just as I was about to concede defeat. But a series of small quakes does not make it a swarm. So a swarm did not occur during the times I specified. And I am wrong. And I hate admitting it and I hate being wrong. But I hold truth above all things. So I was wrong.
But recent activity has centered right where I said it would happen. Just to the north of the lake, and the first 2.1 occured on Feb. 19th the day I said it would. I knew there would be activity there, but I wasn't conviced it would be a swarm. It was possible to say there would be a half dozen quakes in a specific area, but that would not be noteworthy or substainial. So I went with a small swarm. Oh well. The six small quakes showing over the last 24 hours or so, is not a swarm.
The reason I try to predict, is to test my understanding of Yellowstone's activity. On going activity. That's science. You develope a hypothesis and then test it. We observe to understand and discuss to test using logic. There's nothing paranoid about that. Some of my 'wild" ideas may be deluded. But they're not paranoid. And I'm not an geologist, but I am an expert in the field of mental illness. For you see I have the disorder and experince it's manifestations. But science saved me. I use logic. And since I am prone to 'wild' thoughts, I must hold up my ideas to the test of reason. If my ideas fails this test, I must admit I'm wrong and reasses the situation.
I applaud all those here who are trying to understand What is happening at Yellowstone.
Does anyone know a scientist who's not obsessed with their subject?

Since this is on the topic of supervolcanoes, does anyone know if there are any websites that monitor activity at Lake Toba, or if there is anything at all monitoring it? Im just wondering because it has the largest resurgent dome in the world in one of the most seismically active areas of the world, so that can't be a good thing can it? Everyones so focused on yellowstone, i wonder if we're missing out on something else happening over there.

reply to post by tristar


OK, I was not going to answer your second post as I don't want to start a pointless argument, but...

Firstly if you are not going to be looking for data prior to the event as you state, then may I ask what you are doing here?

Secondly, yes I am, and everyone else on this thread is, aware of the potential effects of a full erruption at Yellowstone. If it were to occur, and that we believe is not imminent, then many factors would come into play as to the effects that it would have upon world food production (leaving aside the damage in the immediate area for the moment)

These would depend upon unknowns such as the magnitude of the erruption and the subsequent distribution of dust around the world via (mainly) the jet streams and the degree of particulate in the atmosphere which would be responsible for filtering out sunlight and causing 'nuclear' winter.

Yellowstone were it to blow, would by no means be the largest erruption the world has known and the human race is still here to tell the tale.

One of the purposes of monitoring data after the event would be to determine the direction and density of the resulting dust clouds in an attempt to find out just how we were going to be affected.

Thirdly, having studied both Geography (and Geology) at what is these days the equivalent of at least undergraduate level I am fully aware of food production areas of the world, however your map is meaningless unless you can overlay an anticipated affected area by the dust, and can attempt to extrapolate temperature zone changes caused by the lack of sunlight. Our great planet is very resilient and I believe the effects may not be as great as I assuming you are thinking, and there will be a recovery.

It is a certainty that we would not all survive. No one will argue that point, but it is also a certainty that some will survive. If it is your intention to be as far away as possible, then surely you need to know where the most likely survival spot(s) would be?

It could could blow in 1000 years from now, it could blow next week, or indeed it may never blow - and by blow I mean a full erruption - but I for one will be watching and learning - both before and after the event should it occur in my time.

Nice one Robin - take a Star!

[edit on 26/2/2009 by PuterMan]

I'm sorry. At the top of the page I said I'd provide a link for some Yellowstone history and forgot to add it. I try not to obsess and reread and reread what I've written. Once you realize the truth which science reveals, you can identify and modify an outcome by changing proportions. In this case, I only allow myself to post and obsess if I believe that what I'm saying is relevant and holds up to the scrutiny of reason. History gives us the reasons. Now I'm back. The link.

www.yellowstone.net...

reply to post by Robin Marks


Thanks for that Robin. Very interesting indeed.

Amazing that they were not believed at first.

[edit on 26/2/2009 by PuterMan]

Here's some more proof that volcanoes are a hot topic. Geologists are very angry and are speaking out against the Republican reaction to the funding for science.
I would add my own spin but it's covered in the article.

www.thedailybeast.com...

Thank you for the star Puterman. I'm not suprised no one believe Yellowstone's first European witnesses. Actually, it's the norm for new discoveries to rejected as impossible. My favorite subjects are history and science. Then art, philosophy and the economy. How can you really seperate them. It's all existence. But history especially shows that time and time again, new ideas are scorned, dismissed, marginalized and condemned. However, if the idea is true and sound, it grabs the attention of a few. These few then explore the possbility and find each other, unite, form a consensus and start a civil debate. This debate causes a controversy which ignites public debate and interest. After it is chewed up and spit out by the public machine, it is applied to society. It's a process of experimention inherent our species and our culture. It's the same process which existed when early man first picked up a couple of rocks and produced a spark, or a sharp edge. It's slow. But once it takes hold it's like a plague.
I'm sure you've seen my experiment and browsed through my hypothesis on You Tube. You've been following the thread in detail. And you've obviously studied and are intelligent. I believe my ideas are simply being overlooked and dismissed because they are new. And it doesn't help that I've stumbled into geology while researching another project and I have no degree to support my findings. I need a few, just a few to see the truth. I've used logic, reason and scientific research to present my case. I know the rock evidence is lacking. But consider it again and find the flaw. I know my ideas are wild. But so were the tales those trappers told about lands we now call Yellowstone.



[edit on 26-2-2009 by Robin Marks]

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Robin Marks]

reply to post by PuterMan


Dear Puterman,

I promise I'm trying to shut up. And I am only writing because I think it's relevent. In my video, where I make the audacious claim that I know where the area is that will causes an eruption, I give precise details of the 10 km area I call the gates of hell. If you notice the recent activity is along this line. The swarm was south to north along the caldera from the Huckleberry Ridge eruption. And these recent hiccups seem to be continuing the slow march northward along this fault. Doesn't that make you the least bit curious?

www.youtube.com...

www.seis.utah.edu...

It's funny that there is a sentence that says they update the quakes within 5minutes or once an hour. None are posted on weekends and it can take a day before they post one on a weekday.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Robin Marks]

Occasional earthquakes near LKWY station continue to appear.
Another small one occurred today at about 05:39 UTC.

reply to post by Shirakawa


What sort of size are we talking? I am not getting anything coming through on the M1.0+ listings from USGS.