Whats going on at yellowstone?

Originally posted by alysha.angel
www.seis.utah.edu...


3.0 today .
for those who care .

I care - I think we have to keep in mind that the biggies that are happening -
ie" today 2 6.8 in fiji - has an effect on the whole of the planet to some degree.

Yep!! I care Too!! This is the first place I go when things act up a bit!! So much to learn here!! Keep up the good work people!!

YMP is reacting the last few houers

What are Yellowston's mathematical chances of it erupting in the next 100 years.
science.discovery.com...

There have been 80 erutption since the last "Super-erputinos" 640 000 years or so. Or, one every 8000 years. So the odds that Yellowstone will blow is just 1 in 100 that there will be an eruptionin the next hundred years. And that's not stating any size. I could meann the eruption could be moderate. Math, it oftens puts things into prespective. Do the math if you want to know how worried to be about Swine Flu.

That being said, I cannot dismiss the massive body in middle of North America. I cannot accept that the perfect semi-cirlce at Hudson Bay's southerst section is not a caldera. I cannot accept the official geological explaination that if formed fortituously. That is not an answer. Their best quess is erosion from prevailing winds causing the formation. And I'm making that up because I haven't found any official explaination.

Just stare at a Map of North America. Keep staring at it and come back to it when you can and stare at it some more. Keep looking at it and let it draw you in Notice the patterns, notice the direction. THen find the centres of the circle and draw them in. There's more than one. Mark the direction the contient is travelling, (NNW) and you'll find it. Ground Zero. Stare at it and find a way to conclude tha these geometric shapes just happened fortitously by happenstance. Someone has studied Bleecher Island, and it' been proven not to have happened by a metorites as so many have hypotheised. That's why they went there and did a geological survey. To expain the big circle in Hudson Bay. They found no answer. I have it. It's in the Math. In the Geometry.


Surely without math and science I would have murdered by now and long since been executed. Math and science can explain anything, even the neuro pathways in the mind. I once did not believe this, I thought no one, and nothing could understand the lunacy and maddess that is within my mind. But science allowed me to calculate a behaviour and measure the repetive quotient, the primal factor and the cultrul influence. I was of the artist and rejected all things including art. I hated to hear an authour bathher about his book, nor did I want to hear the story behing a painter. I rejected all hype and circumstance and sought one thing. Truth. And remarkably, math and science have led to every truth I know. I used math and reason and stop my mind from doing horrible things. I renounced all superstition, magic and religion. I presued only one goal- the truth. I do not believe in conspirasy theories, but I find gains of truth in everything, and deciet in every official document I read. I have come to a point where I see everything in the world on an evolutionary basis. I've observed and came to understand myself and kow know what motivates others. I understand history and am aware that it has limitations and is writ by the victor. I know why we alienate and why don't understnad things that are different. I understand it all, expect how to run my computer profiently.
There's only one thing I can't understand. If it'so obvious to me and it is a large void in the middle of a continet with no scientific expaination, why hasn't everyone noticed it. I feel like the guy from Close Encounters of the Third Kind piling his mash pototoes higher and higher. I guess it's in my own minds' eye. Stare at it. I'll bet sooner or later it starts staring back at you.

I wish this were a delusion, I'd sit back and enjoy the ride, take notes and wrtie a novel about the odysey. But it's not so fantastic. It's not outside the realm of rational and reason. There's nothing that defies physics or logic or anything else. It's rathar simplistic and I preformed an experiment. Don't fail me science, I've never given up on you , and I won't. Sometimes it takes a very long time for the truth to be accepted.

What I need is luck, And luck is a mathematical probability. THank god for math. Sooner or later things always add up and you number comes up.

"If it's so obvious to me and it is a large void in the middle of a continent with no scientific explanation, why hasn't everyone noticed it. "

Would you care to elaborate a little more? I like your way of thinking, but I am not completely sure what you mean here.

Thanks.

reply to post by herbivore


I'm sorry, I really meant to just come out here and give the odds of an eruption. As I've said, I was just calculating risks to keep things in perspective. To stay sane. The rest just poured out. To the keen observer, it could be argued that I've hijacked this monstrous, sleeping thread, and turned it into my own personal blogg. What would it hurt? It helps me vent. With all this 2012 stuff, I've running across more stories about Yellowstone. My admitted obsession. It's kooky stuff flying around out there. Things like a chain of events sets of the volcano. Yellowstone doesn't need a planetary alignment to erupt. So I was thrilled to find a mathematical way of looking at it and wanted to share.

For anyone who's read some of the last hundred pages, they will have noticed my hypothesis. I won't go into too much detail. I'll just plug my You Tube channell and let you do the rest.

www.youtube.com...

I just like to come out here and express things that are running around in my head. To manifest them and then analyse the logic, or lack there of. Things trigger my preception of plate tetonics and I can almost see the next move. For example, my attention is fixated on the Queen Charlotte Island earthquake recently. The Region looks like a crude arrow and the quake happened at the tip. The tip seems to be pointing to the northern end of the Juan de Fuca Plate. This on it's on could mean absolutely nothing. But what has me concerned me is the Austrailian Plate movement over the last few months. There has been a push in a northerly direction all along it's northern boundry. Well, here's some simple physics, "for every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Of course that release of friction is directly on the regional fault between the two plates. But let's not forget the other side to the plate equation. The Pacific Plate has an opposite side, and the plate movement will have an effect on the North American Plate and the Juan de Fuca Plate. The movement of the Autrailian Plate may set into motion stress releases in the Juan de Fuca and along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Normally I would just register this as a curiousity to monitor, and see if there is any increased activity to note. But one factor jumped to mind when I thought of the Cascadian Fault and it's proximity to the Olypmics. Once again my imagination is running wild. I'm sure you can set up your own nightmare scenario with the timing and locale. But I'm not going to. I'm just saying, I like to throw wild ideas out here and walk my way back from the ledge. After all this isn't a scientific journal. That's why this is my only outlet to express these ideas. It saves my friends and family from having to hear about them. And I hope some of you out here appreciate the diversion.

I hoped I've informed readers about Yellowstone's history. Many were surprised to read that the first reports about Yellowstone's existence were dismissed repeatedly. No one would believe the stories. It took a whole expedition to confirm the truth of the matter.

But mostly I come out here and share my ideas and my findings. I've gone on and gone about the role of water and and volcanic eruptions. I've drawn connections between Santorini and Krakatoa as being caused by the magma chamber being breached by sea-water and compared them to my own hypothesis. I even made another discovery in the history books. The eruption of Santorini is directly responsible for the events at Soddom and Gomorrah. My hypothesis is nightmarish. In the end I concluded that the eruption ejected it's entire chamber and this material, after travelling in the atmosphere, rained down as sulfuric acid on the Dead Sea area. My story fits with the description of the events better than those by proffessional geologists. It rained brimstone from the sky.

But you asked about the hole in the middle of Canada eh? That big hole is Hudson Bay. As a good Canada boy, with Asperger's and a fascination with maps, I gazed at my vast country all my life. The image was burned into my brain. Fast forward to about four years ago. While researching volcanoes I had a thought. Which transformed into a hypothesis. My imagined eruption was too big. It was massive by any scale. And besides there wasn't any perfectly round caldera anywhere in the world was there? When I turned to the map it was staring at me. A mega eruptin would create a perfect circle, a perfect caldera, and a ground zero to mark the origin of this detination. Not only was the perfect circle staring back at me, in my old familiar home, it was joined to two other, older circles. There were three giant holes in the middle of Canada. And not just that, there is two lines of fresh water lakes running across North America. They are related. And it is not an accident that Canada has 70% of the world's fresh water. We have lots of holes blown in our part of the North American Plate.

Sorry, just venting again.

Sorry to burst your bubble Robin but everyone knows that Hudsons Bay was not created by volcanic activity as there is no residue, also it was not created by an asteroid hit because there is no rim effect, its just a sinkhole.

reply to post by Old Farmer


First, I must ask what you mean by sinkhole. Are you talking about the Hudson Bay Lowlands being depressed by the wieght of the glaciation? Or do mean sinkhole from subterrainean erosion?

We agree it was not formed by asteroid impact. But I can explain where the residue went. Before that I need to know specifically what kind of sinkhole you're talking about.

It looks like some small earthquakes are occurring near YMP station:
theinterveners.org...

Dear Old Farmer,

The Hudson Bay region is not a sinkhole. Most sinkholes are located in areas with limestone and other soft rock. Hudson Bay is located in the Canadian Shield. Some of the oldest and hardest rock in the world.

So you must be talking about the fact that it is believed that the area was depressed by the weight of glaciers. This is one possible answer for the Lowlands on the western side of the bay. But the Eastern shores are sheer verticle features and the terrain is very hilly. The reason for the glacial depression hypothesis was to explain the magnetic anomoly. There is less gravity in the Hudson Bay area. But now scientist think, (and I mean think, because, you are wrong, not everyone knows it is a sinkhole, but we agree it wasn't an impact) that the magnetic anomoly is are a result of convection within the mantle. The answer may be a combination. The land could have been depressed by glaciers and this could have had an effect on the circulation of magma under the deformed crust.

But nothing has been proven. Except that the near perfect circle in Eastern Hudson Bay, the Nastapoka Arc, is not from an impact. The geological survey convinced me because the area did not rebound like other impact sites. So the only explaination for the arc is from glaciation. This explaination seems more fantastic than my own. I don't buy it.

You are correct to ask for some hard evidence for an eruption. There should be some rock solid proof for an eruption as I suggest. Oh god how I wish it was there. It would prove my hypothesis. After all, the reason geologists know that the last eruption at Yellowstone was 72 000 because they find the of the lava flow. (if you take the average interval of eruptions at Yellowstone, it's one every 8000 years, this means Yellowstone could be 60 000 years overdue)

So I should be able to show you a layer of volcanic activity to correspond with the time of that eruption in the strada. But my eruption is a slow flow. There is no big puddle of lava to find. A mega eruption is an ejection of material. Just like a solar ejection, the material is thrown from the volcano. There would be virtually nothing left. It would be like putting a nuclear bomb in a building. After the detonation you will find nothing but a crater. The material would be incinerated and thrown great distances.

But wouldn't there be some trace? Not neccessarily. The magma would be injected into the atmosphere and fall back to earth over a long period and because there was almost constant volcanic activity at the time, the residue could be there, but not differentiate from other sources. And after the eruption, there would be a corresponding ice age. The glaciers, as the moved across the continent, scrapped and eroded the surface. The falling ash would lay within the glacier and then flow out as it melted. The land has been scrubbed clean by glaciatation.

How else do you get a large hole in the Canadian Shield? There is a reason that the glaciers in North America formed around Hudson Bay. It's because the body of water was already there and this is where the first ice would form. My calculations have the eruptions dating from 448-365 million years ago. There is an anciet shorline running through Churchill Manitoba dating back 400 mya. If glaciation caused the Nastapoka Arc and depressed the crust, why didn't glaciation have similiar effects in Asia. Asia was covered by the same ice age and yet North America and Asia are greatly different. Canada has 70% of the world's fresh water. Russia does not have thousands of lakes. Something was different in North America. And that difference was a giant hole in the middle of the hardest and oldest rock in the world. How does ice carve such a dramatic landscape in one place and yet not have the same effect in another? Some is due to topography. But the difference should be minimal.

North America had a massive magma chamber under it. Combined with water, volcanic activity blew craters in the ancient rock. Yellowstone is not unique. And is small when compared to it's older versions. Early in earth's formation, Mega eruption ejected material into orbit. That material colaleased and became our moon. At least that's what I think.



www.newscientist.com...

www.cbc.ca...

Hudson Bay was not formed by a larger version of this,

www.liveleak.com...



[edit on 25-11-2009 by Robin Marks]

I tried to make a bigger chart of the LKWY uplift gps data I took from this link.
The chart image link is here:

img412.imageshack.us...

It's probably still a bit soon to tell it with certainty (there is insufficient data at the end of the series), but it seems to me that uplift at LKWY station (and also WLWY, not charted) is well and alive, and progressing at a fast rate similar to that of 2005 (unless it will start going down again in the following weeks).

[edit on 2009-11-26 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Shirakawa


How come the YVO says the uplift has stopped? I looked at the gps sites and I don't understand how they can say that and how do they aggregate all the stations to make a determination? Please explain.

I was very much hoping the swarms were realeasing pressure and leading to a subsidence and quiet. But it seems the energy lost is replaced quickly. There is one specfic site on the north caldera that keeps having minor regular swarms. This is the same location as the second swarm in January.

Great graph. I'd be interested in seeing it go back many more years if that's possible.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Robin Marks]

Originally posted by Robin Marks
reply to post by Shirakawa

 

How come the YVO says the uplift has stopped? I looked at the gps sites and I don't understand how they can say that and how do they aggregate all the stations to make a determination? Please explain.

YVO says it might have stopped.

If you see the graph, until not many weeks ago the uplift since the end of the Lake EQ swarm appears indeed to have stopped, being more or less stable. But in the last few weeks it appears to have started again. We'll see if YVO will mention that in the November status update. Anyway, I stress again, this might be only a temporary "burp". Even in just 2-3 months we will know more.

I was very much hoping the swarms were realeasing pressure and leading to a subsidence and quiet.

And just after the swarm, exactly this happened!

But it seems the energy lost is replaced quickly. There is one specfic site on the north caldera that keeps having minor regular swarms. This is the same location as the second swarm in January.

WLWY is the closest GPS station to that spot. Albeit at a very slow rate, according to this chart from UNAVCO the uplift is continuing.

Great graph. I'd be interested in seeing it go back many more years if that's possible.

I just used USGS GPS data. They already host the charts, but they are small, hard to read, and don't have a moving average trend line like the one I did.
Unfortunately I can't go back in time as GPS monitoring started from relatively recent times.

[edit on 2009-11-26 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Shirakawa


The link works fine. I have just used it and copied the data from it. I guess you are right Shirakawa about the monitoring of information, but in some respects it makes sense. What I would not like to see is eqs being removed after review when they should not e, but since we are not party to the decisions I am not sure that we would know that.

BTW, yes I am still here lurking but have been very busy finishing up where I an working as my contract finishes on Monday.

I watch this video feed a lot. Usually this geyser only goes on for a few minutes. So far, this has been going on for 10 minutes this morning. Is this typical, as I have not seen it do this before? At 0915 when I turned it on, it was erupting. So far, at 0926 it is still erupting.

Just curious, thats all.

www.nps.gov...

Where is everybody? This is one of the best topics on ATS, it should not be forgotten. So much material discussed, so much energy...is Yellowstone all of a sudden not interesting? Not dynamic enough? Compared to what?

reply to post by herbivore

Shhhh! don't wake him up!

No news is very good news!

I am not looking for any dramatic news, I just appreciate INDEPENDENT source of information. In the case of Yellowstone, this topic was like a tutorial on scientific analysis. It also has this great personal touch, value that cannot be measured.

So, saying "shhh" is not needed. Nobody in the right mind wants to live through a catastrophe - but we also don't want corrupt government agencies polish the data for us, so we don't worry...which is what is happening now.

With the internet, it is unbelievable how much independent information can be shared...that is why government is spending trillions of dollars to stop this flow. Including a lot of "shhhh"...coming from different sources.

Okay, Yellowstone is sitting on a large volcano ready to errupt soon. It has happend before, when the volcano errupted the sun was blocked out in America due to the ash.

TwistedReality

[edit on 5-12-2009 by twistedreality790]

The scary thing is imo theres VEI8 Volcanoes across the world, not JUST Yellowstone.
Campi Flegri where soon Scientists will be drilling deep into the crust for samples (as if that wasnt worrying enough.) Theres also dormant VEI8 Caldera's now being found in Scotland at Glen Coe and Loch Ness where Fumarole activity is being recorded beneath the loch.
Rome is built upon a Caldera not to mention Toba, Caldera's in Argentina, Russia and Japan. Many more than already the documented 7 pre 52,000-year documented eruption Caldera's that we already know of.