Whats going on at yellowstone?

reply to post by Robin Marks


1) There is no new swarm....Yet.

2) Recent activity was close to last swarm, but not quite in the same spot. And the last swarm was over weeks ago. This if anything, any new swarm like activity would have to be considered a new swarm. But there is no such activity occurring.

3) I missed my opportunity to pull the worst joke of all on April 1, claiming I had detected a very powerful harmonic tremor at Yellowstone, and the world was about to end. Darnit. *snap*

reply to post by TrueAmerican


well in an earlyer reply I predicted an big EQ round april13 (45 days after chile and 90days after haiti)
lets see over an week how it looks with yelly...



[edit on 4-4-2010 by ressiv]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Trust me I don't want to debate. But I have to. It's a disorder

I'm not looking to define a swarm. But using the YVO criteria, they stated there was a swarm on Feb 13 which consisted 13 earthquakes. It was in the March update. I'm not saying this is a new swarm. I contend it's part of the swarm that started in January. But forget that. This activity has already had 11 earthquakes and one was 3+. So it's a swarm according to the YVO, so it's not my fault if I have to call it a swarm. And if there is a few more quakes, this activity will be bigger than the 13 on Feb 13. I predicted that one as well. That swarm could be considered a different swarm because it was many kilometers to the north. But this activity is not just near the activity that started in January, it's the same location. Many of the quakes occured just northwest of the original flurry. If anything, it suggests migration of the activity in a northwesterly direction.

It seems that migration of activity trends to the north and west. And the migrations seem to move away from the chamber.

From Smith/Waite on the 1985 swarm.

"Spanned > 3 months.

The swarm had unusual characteristics indicative of interaction between siesmicity and hydrothermal/magmatic activity.

We examined anyalitical models... and found that the temporal shift of earthquake activity could be explained by the migration of hydrothermal fluids radially outward from the Yellowstone caldera following rupture of a sealed hydrothermal system within the caldera."

I contend that this activity is similar to the events of 1985 and what we are seeing is migration. Another similarity is that the activity is in the same region of the park. Many of the larger swarms have taken place in the northwest quadrant of the park and caldera.

Originally posted by Robin Marks
From Smith/Waite on the 1985 swarm.

"Spanned > 3 months.

The swarm had unusual characteristics indicative of interaction between siesmicity and hydrothermal/magmatic activity.

We examined anyalitical models... and found that the temporal shift of earthquake activity could be explained by the migration of hydrothermal fluids radially outward from the Yellowstone caldera following rupture of a sealed hydrothermal system within the caldera."

I contend that this activity is similar to the events of 1985 and what we are seeing is migration. Another similarity is that the activity is in the same region of the park. Many of the larger swarms have taken place in the northwest quadrant of the park and caldera.

Hmm, well it is interesting that on one hand, you quote findings from Smith/Waite relative to a 1985 swarm to support your current suspicion that this "activity" is similar, but on the other hand you choose to reject the YVO's continual reiteration of the finding that the recent large swarm was completely tectonic/faulting in nature, and had nothing to do with hydrothermal or magmatic activity.

And don't get me wrong here, as I am just pointing that out for your further consideration. Because Lord knows, I have deviated in similar ways from their views in the past. It's all good.

But honestly, seeing as I have had every single working seismic station in that park up in GEE for the past month literally, and monitored it profusely, I fail to see where any new swarm, or even any part of the old swarm has occurred at all.

I am now actively tracking the number of swarms per year in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You might want to take a peek at that, as I have established contact with Jake and Jamie. Would you like me to ask Jamie Farrell if there has been another swarm since the last 17 event one? (Yes, I do believe that was 17 event, not 13). I don't believe there has been, but I can ask if you like, or you can too- they are quite responsive.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I stand corrected, it was 17. " In addition a small earthquake swarm of 17 earthquakes occurred on February 13, and was located about 12 miles NE of West Yellowstone,". YVO

My point was that the YVO has considered swarms as small as the one Feb. 13.

I did not disagree with the YVO when it said the Jan. 17 swarm was regular faulting. I speculated at the time that it may not be regular faulting and there may be fluid migration, but my views were never concrete. I did however make the point loud and clear that the YVO changed the update and revised it to state that the activity could be from pressure from the chamber. I don't like change. And that's why I reacted. I also noted with keen attention that the revised their uplift statement. At one point they said that the uplift may have stopped. They have since removed that opinion.

I think that looking at these quakes in isolation is like splitting hairs. This is a 640 000 year old volcano. Three months of activity happens in a blink of the eye. If the ups and downs of the caldera are like breathing, then the quakes are like coughs, and the activity over the last few months is one big hacking fit.

Originally posted by Robin Marks
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

I stand corrected, it was 17. " In addition a small earthquake swarm of 17 earthquakes occurred on February 13, and was located about 12 miles NE of West Yellowstone,". YVO

My point was that the YVO has considered swarms as small as the one Feb. 13.

I did not disagree with the YVO when it said the Jan. 17 swarm was regular faulting. I speculated at the time that it may not be regular faulting and there may be fluid migration, but my views were never concrete. I did however make the point loud and clear that the YVO changed the update and revised it to state that the activity could be from pressure from the chamber. I don't like change. And that's why I reacted. I also noted with keen attention that the revised their uplift statement. At one point they said that the uplift may have stopped. They have since removed that opinion.

I think that looking at these quakes in isolation is like splitting hairs. This is a 640 000 year old volcano. Three months of activity happens in a blink of the eye. If the ups and downs of the caldera are like breathing, then the quakes are like coughs, and the activity over the last few months is one big hacking fit.

1) No where did YVO change any update to say that it could be from pressure from the chamber.

2) Uplifting has slowed significantly and may have stopped. These could be synonymous, "slowed significantly" and "may have stopped" seem almost interchangeable at this point. And for this to be in any correlation with an eruption, it would have to be rapid uplift, not something that has slowed significantly and may have stopped. Uplift and decrease in large calderas is normal activity.

3) This volcano is at least 2 million years old and personifying it doesn't make your points anymore valid and the entire Yellowstone region is highly seismic in nature.

The only one splitting hairs is you.

For further education on things of this nature, not sure if many of you have read the fact sheet and hazard assessment in the form of a .pdf file: pubs.usgs.gov...

[edit on 4-4-2010 by citizenihilist]

Regardless of any argument here, the 6.9 in BAJA might have an effect on YS.

Originally posted by Roald
Regardless of any argument here, the 6.9 in BAJA might have an effect on YS.

yeah it did , look here , the shock waves are cool to look at .

www.isthisthingon.org...

Well looking at the recent graphs at :-

LINKY FROM OUR FRIEND

It certainly caught a ripple..

Beat me alysha.angel..

4 mins... my typin' must be slow...

[edit on 4/4/2010 by UKWO1Phot]

Originally posted by citizenihilist
1) No where did YVO change any update to say that it could be from pressure from the chamber.

Chang and his colleagues credit the relatively rapid rise to recharge of magma into the giant magma chamber that underlies the Yellowstone Caldera. They also used numerical modeling to infer that the magma intruded about 10 km (6 miles) beneath the surface.
Recent ups and downs of the Yellowstone Caldera

Originally posted by citizenihilist
2) Uplifting has slowed significantly and may have stopped. These could be synonymous, "slowed significantly" and "may have stopped" seem almost interchangeable at this point. And for this to be in any correlation with an eruption, it would have to be rapid uplift, not something that has slowed significantly and may have stopped. Uplift and decrease in large calderas is normal activity.

The general uplift and subsidence of the Yellowstone caldera is of scientific importance and will continue to be monitored closely by YVO staff.
Yellowstone Recent Status Report

reply to post by alysha.angel

Ai, cool. So, we might soon get busy again here. I see several quakes hitting California already. Up to 5.1 I think.

reply to post by Roald


I must be missing something, nothing you posted had anything to do with what I posted.

"I did not disagree with the YVO when it said the Jan. 17 swarm was regular faulting. I speculated at the time that it may not be regular faulting and there may be fluid migration, but my views were never concrete. I did however make the point loud and clear that the YVO changed the update and revised it to state that the activity could be from pressure from the chamber."

Robin was obviously referring to the January-February swarm when he said this.

I never said uplift wasn't of scientific importance, I'm saying that it happens and has happened at other large calderas.

So...your point being?

Also, in the same link you posted: "The new activity, though more rapid than those previously measured at Yellowstone, is not unprecedented at large calderas around the globe."




[edit on 4-4-2010 by citizenihilist]

Looking at the shockwave going through the park. (via the graphs)

Could that give an idea of the density of the rock etc below..

EDIT: The reason I ask is because the waterways show min movement except the East side..

[edit on 4/4/2010 by UKWO1Phot]

reply to post by citizenihilist


Dear Citizen,

Feb 8, YVO, "Yellowstone National Park is in a region of active seismicity associated with regional Basin and Range extension of the Western U.S., as well as youthful volcanism of the Yellowstone volcanic field. Pressurization due to crustal magma bodies of the Yellowstone hotspot and associated shallow geothermal reservoirs can also contribute to earthquakes."

volcanoes.usgs.gov...

In January until Feb. 8, the YVO statement said this, "Yellowstone Volcano Observatory scientists still consider that the swarm events are likely the result of slip on pre-existing faults and are not thought to be caused by underground movement of magma. Currently there is no indication of premonitory volcanic or hydrothermal activity, but ongoing observations and analyses will continue to evaluate these different sources."

They revised their assessment and said it may be pressurization.

It's been 640 000 years since the last "super eruption". The hot spot that forms the chain is 15 million.

"Slowed significantly" is an accurate statement.

"May have stopped" was not an accurate statement.

There has been some areas that have slowed and some areas have even subsided. But then the subsidence reversed and it started to uplift again. May have stopped was inaccurate. It is true to say that the uplift has slowed, but it is more accurate to say that the chamber roof is undulating.

The recent swarms may prove in the end to have relieved pressure and there will be a subsidence. But that's not the case at the moment.

I wish Shirakawa would visit every so often. He'd provide a good graph with up to date trends and everything.

Darn the 6.9 broke YMR.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Robin Marks]

reply to post by Robin Marks


That wasn't a revision about the Jan-Feb swarm, they said these things CAN cause earthquakes, probably from people asking the same question over and over via e-mail. Otherwise they'd be contradicting what they said in the same update.

And how is there NOT subsidence when something has drastically slowed and may have even stopped (in that area)? Maybe the actually deflation hasn't occurred, but it certainly has slowed significantly, giving the indication that subsidence is in the near future. There are uplifts and, for lack of a better word, delifts in calderas all around the globe. They even go on to state this in their Recent ups and downs of the Yellowstone Caldera article.

EDIT: Also, the chamber roof is "waving?" What exactly do you even mean by that?

Aren't you the same Robin Marks to have found the "precise location" where the next super eruption would occur? And you came to that conclusion using scientific data saying it would occur somewhere NE in the Caldera and claiming this as your own finding? It seems you try to post everywhere on Yellowstone claiming you found some hidden knowledge and that YOU discovered it.



[edit on 4-4-2010 by citizenihilist]

mod edit, replaced long quote with REPLY TO

[edit on Sun Apr 4 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by citizenihilist
And your background in geology at Yellowstone is...? Reading about it on the internet?

I would like to ask you the same question before I hit the ignore or ALERT button.
We normally do not attack each other here.

Originally posted by Roald

Originally posted by citizenihilist
And your background in geology at Yellowstone is...? Reading about it on the internet?

I would like to ask you the same question before I hit the ignore or ALERT button.
We normally do not attack each other here.

Then i'll also ask YOU the same question.

You seem to think anything irrelevant that happens outside of Yellowstone, effects Yellowstone.

And sorry, I don't make up things in my head and post them here for obvious criticism for someone who "must" debate. I'm quoting scientific data, not my interpretation of it.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by citizenihilist]

Originally posted by citizenihilist
You seem to think anything irrelevant that happens outside of Yellowstone, effects Yellowstone.

I do not consider a M7.2 in Baja irrelevant, and we now have seen that the quake had an effect. Anyway, you do not seem to know the history. Maybe reading Alaska Quake Seems to Trigger Yellowstone would help?

Originally posted by citizenihilist
And sorry, I don't make up things in my head and post them here for obvious criticism for someone who "must" debate. I'm quoting scientific data, not my interpretation of it.

I'm quite sure most of the regular people here do not "make up things in their head" either. Most of them do indeed have quite god knowledge regarding Yellowstone. We do also rely on what you call "scientific data" but some of us also rely on our own experience.

This end my discussion with you for now.

Originally posted by Roald

Originally posted by citizenihilist
You seem to think anything irrelevant that happens outside of Yellowstone, effects Yellowstone.

I do not consider a M7.2 in Baja irrelevant, and we now have seen that the quake had an effect. Anyway, you do not seem to know the history. Maybe reading Alaska Quake Seems to Trigger Yellowstone would help?

Originally posted by citizenihilist
And sorry, I don't make up things in my head and post them here for obvious criticism for someone who "must" debate. I'm quoting scientific data, not my interpretation of it.

I'm quite sure most of the regular people here do not "make up things in their head" either. Most of them do indeed have quite god knowledge regarding Yellowstone. We do also rely on what you call "scientific data" but some of us also rely on our own experience.

This end my discussion with you for now.

What effect did it have on Yellowstone? It showed up on the seismographs?

Of course it did, p-waves and s-waves travel around the entire globe.

And of course, regular people here don't "make things up in their heads." But Robin, more often then not, goes off onto unintelligible rantings about things completely irrelevant and then gets pissed that he's ignored by actual scientists.

And what experience do most, if any, people here have with geology at Yellowstone? I doubt anyone who has posted here even lives in Wyoming, Utah, or Montana or has ANY background in geology, seismology or vulcanology.

Not to sound rude or anything, but come on.

[Note: This wasn't to disrespect constructive and level-headed posters such as Shirakawa and True American and all of the others actually contributing and not making brash "predictions" and using pseudo-science to fit their needs.]
[edit on 4-4-2010 by citizenihilist]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by citizenihilist]

I feel real silly to have read this thread, because it is now April 4 2010 LOL. Once again we are all still here alive and well.