Whats going on at yellowstone?

Hi, I was logged in with my PS3, Don't think it worked for posting lol.

Well, I am New here and Shirakawa recommended me to here.

I been trying to create videos that shows the magnitudes of the quakes. One tiny issue, I knowticed that the have created a 5 line max on clipping. that is to say that the won't allow the needle to go over 5 . I noticed that in the fine print on each graph.

If this being the case then how can we judge accurately the size of the quakes? I realize that there is different depths as well.

and some of them have been really weird signals I understand that they are doing blasts in that area as well. is there an up date sight for the blasting? so that I won't miss represent a posting? and how do I know what ones to keep and what ones to let go?

Thus far I have been keeping a log of at least all the big ones.

I might be weird but, in my thought, it seams a quake causing a tiny fissure would enough to send this thing up.
I thank you guys for your time.

Also if you guys think I should get rid of a video having to do with Yellowstone let me know. I want to give good information not misinformation.

reply to post by pantangele

If God does make it pop off, it'll BE because we deserve it. The great flood, sodom & gomorrah, the ten plagues of egypt, the fall of jericho even... it's pretty clear he only uses "natural disasters" to spank us. He knows the precise moment it will erupt, and has known since before the world existed. Can you think of anything on earth that more-resembles a bottomless lake of fire with a cover over it? Me either. It won't happen because I want to see Lost through to completion; it'll only happen when it's time for it to happen, when the peoples of the world are so far-gone with greed and apathy and corruption and malice and self-centeredness that they need a good rebooting.

C'mon, rapture...........

PS: look very very very very closely at the pattern of fault lines running through the caldera itself, recalling that each red line is a place where the ground's already fractured:



Can't you just see that giant rectangle in the middle flipping up and backwards to the northwest, as if hinged on its NW side? It's like the lid on God's own missile silo...

[edit on 2/2/2010 by Thought Provoker]

reply to post by PuterMan


If you read this study in PDF format, it's written that with new earthquake location and swarm detection techniques it has been found out that the 1985 swarm wasn't as large as thought:

Waite (1999) identified 3156 earthquakes in the autumn 1985
swarm. However, using the relocated catalog, the swarm was found to
consist of only 462 earthquakes. From 1995 to 2006 the swarms
identified in this study become more similar to the swarms identified
by Waite (1999) in both the number of swarms and the total number
of earthquakes in each swarm. This is because the seismic network
upgrades improved the quality of the earthquake locations so that
more earthquakes made it through the relocation process.

What are relocated earthquakes?

The data used here are a subset of the high-precision data determined
by Husen and Smith (2004) of relocated hypocenters determined
using tomographically determined three-dimensional P-wave
velocity models for seismicity from 1973 to 2002. Hypocenters for the
later period, 2003–2006, were relocated using the velocity model for
the time period 1995–2002 of Husen and Smith (2004) and added to
the catalog providing a total of 29,336 earthquakes.

But please also read the rest in detail to better understand the context of these excerpts.

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

Puterman, in 1895 the webicorders were really crude, they just felt stuff.

1985 was the largest swarm recorded. This one is officially second in number of quakes. I haven't heard anything official but it's cumulative energy has got to have surpassed last year. Making it the second largest swarm ever recorded. Swarms are common. This swarm is uncommonly large.

Did anyone see the bison on the Old Faithful webcam. There's none now. Just a couple cross country skiing. Silly me. At first I thought it was geologists taking samples. Man can I be stupid at moments.

Here's a tribute to Dr. H.S. Thompson. An original.

www.youtube.com...

I would give you a clip of the opening credits because I think the shots were of Yellowstone but can't find one. Watch the movie.

I just checked. The bison are back in the frame of the live webcam. Hurry before it gets dark.


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Robin Marks]

Well I think know I understand some of what you guys are talking about. "Some rumbles are not being shown. A little over an hour ago usgs posted a 3.1 I had to dig for it. Then 2.9 which they did report but then the report for the 3.1 dissapeared. I'm new at this so I have missed something. I will go back and check. Does anyone else see this?

Whoa - just woken up to see the YMR chart buzzing again - so it's definitely not over. What on earth caused all that commotion? Are they still convinced this is tectonic and not volcanic?

Originally posted by shutterbugw
Hi, I was logged in with my PS3, Don't think it worked for posting lol.

Well, I am New here and Shirakawa recommended me to here.

Hi and welcome.

If this being the case then how can we judge accurately the size of the quakes? I realize that there is different depths as well.

This is not possible from webicorders. You need raw waveform data and the knowledge to perform that (not an easy task).

By using programs such as GEE however, with some practice you can estimate earthquake magnitude. I won't go into detail in explaining how to set this up, though, it's a lenghty process. Try using the Google search function for this thread.

and some of them have been really weird signals I understand that they are doing blasts in that area as well. is there an up date sight for the blasting? so that I won't miss represent a posting? and how do I know what ones to keep and what ones to let go?

Keep in mind that blasting is occurring at an open pit coal mine about 350 Km east of Yellowstone by a private company. The signals are strong enough to show on Yellowstone webicorders. You shouldn't worry about them anyway.

I might be weird but, in my thought, it seams a quake causing a tiny fissure would enough to send this thing up.

It's tougher than you think!

Also if you guys think I should get rid of a video having to do with Yellowstone let me know. I want to give good information not misinformation.

As long as you don't associate yourself with the USGS, YVO, University of Utah or any other knowledgeable institutions, and credit the source(s) for the data/images you use, I think anything would be ok.

Originally posted by crappiekat
Well I think know I understand some of what you guys are talking about. "Some rumbles are not being shown. A little over an hour ago usgs posted a 3.1 I had to dig for it. Then 2.9 which they did report but then the report for the 3.1 dissapeared. I'm new at this so I have missed something. I will go back and check. Does anyone else see this?

Sometimes there can be errors in earthquake detection or magnitude calculation, and when this happens, earthquakes get revised or deleted.

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by crappiekat


I see this all the time - sometimes revision, sometime deletion after review on error, sometimes just "becuase".

Robin, the bison have now decided to take a nap there now if you wanna take a re look - they are showing off for us - haha, we're here and your not - they have no fear of what is beneath them - I have seen them there before though - they are cool and magnificant animals -

weahter conditions : NULL and 24 F at Lake Yellowstone, WY
n/a
Winds are Calm. The pressure is 1016.6 mb and the humidity is 84%. Last Updated on Feb 2 2010, 2:56 pm MST.

reply to post by Shirakawa


I have read that PDF. You have missed my point. They are still saying that 1985 was the largest swarm when in fact it was not. That accolade belongs to the current swarm. At 1662 quakes over 462 - no contest.

[Source Wikipedia]

To exploit the information in a seismogram to the fullest, one uses waveform tomography. In this case, the seismograms are the observed data. In seismic exploration, the forward model is usually governed by the acoustic wave equation. This is an approximation to the elastic wave propagation. Elastic waveform tomography is much more difficult than acoustic waveform tomography. The acoustic wave equation is numerically solved by some numerical schemes such as finite-difference and finite-element methods. Seismic waveform tomography can be efficiently solved by adjoint methods.

I am capable of understanding what that says actually.

The data where they quote 3000 earthquakes was last updated thus:Page Last Modified: Tuesday, 09 September 2008 13:35:03 UTC

So their left and right hand are not saying the same thing, neither is the data which is publicly available in the ANSS database. The figure you mentioned is much closer to that which I would include in the 1985 by their own definition of a swarm.

That being the case, please tell me why that article of 9th Sep 2008 states

Figure 3. The largest recorded earthquake swarm at Yellowstone occurred during the fall of 1985. There were about 3000 earthquakes over a three-month period. Over 200 events were recorded on two separate days during this time period.

. Their own data denies this with a max of 93 quakes on one day not 200 on 2 days. I am merely pointing out that it seems to me that there is a discrepancy here somewhere.

You said

But please also read the rest in detail to better understand the context of these excerpts.

. I have done so and I am quite able to spot a discrepancy in the promulgation of data thank you.

What is being put out for general consumption seems to be designed to my suspicious mind to allay any fears that this may be a significant event by pointing the finger at 1985 saying - oh look but that was much bigger so don't worry folks, everything is A OK. It is definitely not the same as that which under ordinary circumstances would not be accessed by the general public. But then we are not just your ordinary general public are we?





[edit on 2/2/2010 by PuterMan]

I don't know if anybody noticed, but on the Yellowstone current earthquake list there's an automatically generated M2.2 (!) earthquake which is a bit north to the current swarm. I wonder if the activity we've seen in the last couple hours didn't occur there.

www.seis.utah.edu...

Originally posted by Shirakawa
I don't know if anybody noticed, but on the Yellowstone current earthquake list there's an automatically generated M2.2 (!) earthquake which is a bit north to the current swarm. I wonder if the activity we've seen in the last couple hours didn't occur there.

www.seis.utah.edu...

Yep, noticed that and switched to Holmes Hill and Maple Creek recorders but seems they're all weaker and responses to YMRs activity?

Plus, when looking at IsThisThingOn's daythumbs - the increase in activity isn't shown on YMR yet more activity being shown on YPP to the south... strange?

EDIT - scrap that last bit - seems was issue with IsThisThingOn site..

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MoorfNZ]

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MoorfNZ]

reply to post by PuterMan


Not to but into a serious debate - but I think this portion says it all : What is being put out for general consumption seems to be designed to my suspicious mind to allay any fears that this may be a significant event - .

Look at the Lake issue i just raised (bun intentded)-

by the way - UofU is saying that last wave one quake was a 2.5 and the rest smaller - shollow depth -

Any thinking on this ongoing current situation

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Shirakawa

 

I have read that PDF. You have missed my point. They are still saying that 1985 was the largest swarm when in fact it was not. That accolade belongs to the current swarm. At 1662 quakes over 462 - no contest.

Yes, I understand you about this - I have noticed this contradiction too. The 1985 swarm is generally reported to be the largest recorded so far, but that study reveals that is was actually not. I speculate that since the study is rather new (it's been accepted on August 2009), old information has yet to be updated. Or maybe isn't considered "official" data yet, so for now the largest swarm is still the 1985 one. I don't know.

[...]

What is being put out for general consumption seems to be designed to my suspicious mind to allay any fears that this may be a significant event by pointing the finger at 1985 saying - oh look but that was much bigger so don't worry folks, everything is A OK. It is definitely not the same as that which under ordinary circumstances would not be accessed by the general public. But then we are not just your ordinary general public are we?

Sorry, but I don't really have any clue of why there are these discrepancies especially now that you pointed them. Maybe I'm missing something.

By the way, have you tried searching for earthquakes starting from a very low magnitude instead of 0? For example entering in the search field -100 minimum magnitude? By inserting an extremely low value, earthquakes of unknown magnitudes will appear too. Maybe their number will increase. Let us know!

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

Originally posted by Anmarie96
reply to post by PuterMan

 

Not to but into a serious debate - but I think this portion says it all : What is being put out for general consumption seems to be designed to my suspicious mind to allay any fears that this may be a significant event - .

Look at the Lake issue i just raised (bun intentded)-

by the way - UofU is saying that last wave one quake was a 2.5 and the rest smaller - shollow depth -

Any thinking on this ongoing current situation

I'm with you on that, too, and it's not usually in my nature to be suspicious of any tinkering.. but something "feels" wrong.

Plus, are we seeing activity moving from YMR to areas to the north and south along caldera rim? (EDIT - scrap that - seems issue with IsThisThingOn reporting when I was looking - fixed now!)

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MoorfNZ]

Magnitude 2.2 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING
2010 February 03 00:02:53 UTC

earthquake.usgs.gov...

reply to post by Shirakawa


I've read the pdf to try and find context. But I'm think sometimes. When they reveiwed the data they had 462 quakes. They why is the graph not have that figure. I'm missing something. I realizing they are going back over the material with a newer technology and found only 426. How does the number stand at 3000 in light of the review using better techniques and programs. I don't get it. Please in layman's terms for all us, how many quakes were in the 1985? Is the review accepted as the true count. Is there something I'm missing. Please fill me in. I don't think this is trite. If this review is the true record, that would make this swarm the largest ever to be recorded. If true, then this swarm is not only not common, it's completely unique. I want more inform on 1985. Throw down some PDFs with more 1895- sorry 1985 data and conclusions. Either it was 462 or 3000. Which is it. On a par with this swarm or not. !985 had a migration of fluid. Either mamga or ground water.

If this is the case and this swarm is 1666+ quakes, and if 1985 is only 462, then we have a different beast altogether. I knew I had to keep going back to 1985 for some reason. We need comparisons. And I want and accurate bargraph. Was it three months? Was it several swarms counted as one? What's the scoop Shirakawa?

You just answered some of my questions in a reply to Puterman. Do you have a PDF that has the study which review the 1985 data?


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Robin Marks]

Originally posted by Shirakawa
I don't know if anybody noticed, but on the Yellowstone current earthquake list there's an automatically generated M2.2 (!) earthquake which is a bit north to the current swarm. I wonder if the activity we've seen in the last couple hours didn't occur there.

www.seis.utah.edu...

Seems they've relocated it back to the swarm zone...

I am new to ATS, but have been following this thread for over a year. I have found this thread to be the only intelligent forum on Yellowstone on the net. I have thought of joining a few times but never have.

The reason I posted today - Did anyone notice the larger quake around 16:11 MST on YMR? I was watching on GEE. I am struggling with why no computer generated report was produced for this quake. I was estimating its size at 2.8-3.1 magnitude. I has been a couple of hours now, and nothing. Did anyone else notice it?

By the way - My theory is that the deformation is shifting NE, and causing the ground to settle where the swarm is taking place.

reply to post by Wisconsin Warm


Yes, I noticed that too - when I logged on to the webicorders I thought I'd see eQuake light up with that YMR activity but nothing was reported. Hence why I've been a wee bit suspicious this morning...

reply to post by Robin Marks


I think the answer to the discrepancy is that the ANSS database is incomplete.

Between the start of October 1985 to the end of December 1985, in the following earthquake catalog from the UUSS website it turns out that indeed 3000 events occurred but, according to the algorithm showed in the PDF previously linked, they were part of several swarms, not just one:

www.quake.utah.edu...
(from here)

So my conclusion is that there's no hidden data, just located elsewhere.
And, again, that 3000 events from different swarms (not only one) occurred in the 1985 Oct-Dec period.

As for PDFs for the 1985 swarm, I'm sorry but I have none.
I'd like one myself.

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]