Whats going on at yellowstone?

Yep,
smaller readings but more or less the same stuff.
Going to try to find a more pronounced reading from that period.

This is a little off topic but there have been a few peeps mentioning the fact this thread had reached 666 pages but I hadn’t paid it much thought myself until a few moments ago when I saw this thread 666 days until 12/21/2012.

Its quite a spookie coincidence that on the 23rd Feb 2011 this thread is 666 pages long and there are exactly 666 days until 21st Dec 2012. Gotta love coincidences

YPK check

October, November and December 2005 -> nothing
entire year 2006 -> 3 "faint" occurencies but so faint it's hard to tell and nearly non conclusive.

Gettting an headache, opening all those graphs.

reply to post by Trip3

The different between "Puterman" and myself, beyond my being a geologist and not finding any sort of self-importance in misplaced references to "spectrograms" and "Fourier transforms" in a long, drawn-out post involving nothing but a terminal case of posturing ...

Thank you so much. You just shot yourself in the foot and unequivocally demonstrated that you are not a geologist since the ONLY way that harmonic tremor can be determined is by these methods, yet you chose to dismiss them. Could it be that you are also 'posturing' as you like to put it?

I may be mistaken, but earlier weren't you claiming the offered "harmonic tremors" were telemetry noise?

Yes I did think it was telemetry because I am not a geologist/seismologist and listening to the sound at 10x speed that is what it sounded like to me. I do accept that I should have said 'it is my belief that..'. Subsequently I spoke to a.........what was your expression - oh yes "on site doctoral professional" who said they were probably microseisms but they were not HT or telemetry. I am, even at the age of nearly 63, quite able to learn and to admit when I am wrong.

Microseisisms from storms, pressure drops, and other things, look nothing like harmonic tremors.

Furthermore the only instruments able to register such microseisisms, would be broad-band stations .. such as YMR, which is both broadband and strong-motion.

Interesting tactics actually. You see you failed to state that microseisms were normally only visible on broadband instruments in your original dismissal. I said that this was the case in a post and here you are trying to use what I said, and you failed to observe, as justification for your theory. Neat. I quite like that!

I have to say I really must thank you for providing the link to the paper on deep ocean microseisms. A very interesting read indeed.

Seismic noise spectra contains two prominent peaks at 0.05-0.1 and 0.1-0.3 Hz called primary and secondary microseisms, respectively. The primary microseism originates from direct forcing of strong oceanic waves while the secondary microseism which is characterized by stronger amplitudes is produced at double frequency by a nonlinear interaction of these waves as suggested by Longuet-Higgins [1950].

and

Although there is little doubt that a part of the ambient noise is related with the interaction of oceanic waves with the coast, it is not the only situation where waves propagating in opposite directions are encountered. Kedar et al. [2008] used a wave action model to implement Longuet-Higgins theory and found that particular regions in the deep oceans are potential sources of secondary microseism excitation. This is related to specific conditions of meteorological forcing associated with resonances of the water column. Their results indicate that secondary microseisms can be generated in specific deep-water areas with one example in the Atlantic ocean south of Greenland.

So now it would seem that all that is required is possibly a deep swell. Now it is also a fact that most of the weather that we experience in Ireland has, because of the jetstream, been diverted up towards Greenland recently. My other half has keen interest in this and is always moaning that Greenland is 'stealing our weather' as she puts it. This page has links to surface pressure maps going back to 1998 and to Jetstream maps that go back 5 years. In addition I have satellite images for this area going back to 2008 as that is another hobby of mine.

We compute noise cross correlations for three seismic arrays located within continents in the Northern hemisphere. During summer months, when most of strong storms are located in the Southern hemisphere, the observed noise cross correlations are dominated by arrivals at near!zero times. Polarization analysis clearly indicates that these arrivals are composed of teleseismic P waves. We then use a beam-forming analysis to determine precisely back azimuths and slowness corresponding to these arrivals and to back project them to the regions where the energy was generated based on ray tracing in a global spherically symmetric Earth model.

I guess that might explain why these signals appear in the winter months? Their conclusions states:

These observations confirm that the source of secondary microseisms are not confined in the coastal areas as it is often accepted by seismologists. On average, the excitation of P waves by oceanic waves is stronger in the deep oceans. It does not mean, however, that there is no excitation along the coast, particularly when storms hit the shoreline.

It would seem that 'storms' are not the only source. So thank you for providing that link again which actually shoots you in the foot - again - and saves you the bother of explaining why these could not be microseisms, which you failed to do, as obviously they can.

And for future reference, water is not the key in big eruptions.

Mm, whilst I accept you have not defined 'big' I would consider that the 1883 phreatic eruption of Krakatoa was quite 'big'

This is why I was able to sleep a quarter mile from the Kilauea eruption for months, without concern.

While Kilauea is currently known for its largely non-explosive eruptions, it has had large explosive eruptions in the past.[11] The most recent of such explosive eruptions occurred in 1924, when magma interacted with groundwater as the long-standing lava lake in Halema'uma'u Crater drained.

In the early morning of March 19, 2008, Halema'uma'u experienced its first explosive event since 1924 and the first eruption in the Kilauea caldera since September 1982. A steam vent that had recently opened near the overlook area exploded, generating a magnitude 3.7 earthquake, and scattering rocks over a 75-acre (300,000 m2) area. A small amount of ash was also reported at a nearby community. The explosion debris covered part of Crater Rim Drive and damaged Halema?uma?u overlook. The explosion did not release any lava, which suggests to scientists that it was driven by hydrothermal or gas sources.

Source

This would seem to be yet another demonstration that you are not, as you yourself have admitted, a volcanologist. Despite this you prognosticate impending doom at Yellowstone on the basis of supposed harmonic tremor at one or more recorders but are unwilling or incapable of providing the accepted methods of determining HT to prove your point.

Actually I am having great difficulty getting my head round just exactly what it is you claim to do. You say you are a geologist, and not a volcanologist, yet you sleep on top of volcanoes and play with military ordinance. Most intriguing!

These are things that armchair geophysicists don't think about. There are a great many real interpretive implications involve here. I've not spent any a whole lot of time sitting on volcanos(sic), but I'm damn sure I've spent a lot more than you. And I periodic harmonic tremors on Hawaii, which shouldn't be a surprise due to the fractures and lava tubes. I've also done a lot of seismic refraction work. Similarly GPR involves the same principles and filter processes.

Strange sentence that. Seems to be an edited copy and paste (not very well edited) and really does not make sense. How does one "periodic harmonic tremors". Do you "periodic" them anywhere else I wonder?

How exactly is it that you reconcile all this? You understand of course that all we are interested in doing is establishing your credentials. We all accept that we are not experts, however you are categorically stating that you are. Is it unreasonable therefore for us to ask you to clarify some points?

That is why having a "box of rocks" does not make one a geologist.

And yet you suggested that as a point to attempt to prove I was not a geologist.

Is Puterman a volcanologist? A geologist? Does he have a "box with rocks" somewhere?

In the context of that particular post the inference was that a lack of a box of rocks disqualified me as a geologist or volcanologist. Now all of a sudden the possession of such a box does not make one a geologist, presumably because I indicated that I do possess one.

Odd. Must be very difficult keeping up with what you have said. All these negations. Tangled webs comes to mind.

I wouldn't have gone with the HTs for absolute certainty if I had not myself gotten absolute, positive verification from an on-site PhD volcanologist. See, this, along with my own education and extensive background,are why your little forum posturings don't really make any sort of impression of me. You've got a great echo chamber going in this thread though.

It should not be difficult for you to provide the workings of that verification then without divulging the name of the "on-site PhD volcanologist" in that case. You have to realise that you are making a very serious allegation here and no one is going to believe you without proof. Deny ignorance is our motto and whilst on some of the forums on ATS things may be a bit more "way out" shall we say, on this science based forum we require evidence.

Why now and why not in September?

If those were HT, and I repeat they AREN'T, why would all what you told us about (data being transfered, secret meetings, people going to dig in feet of snow and so on) happen now and not in September or November.

If 15+ hours of HT on 5-6 different graphs east and north-east of YS should be enough to make the YVO and people in charge of YS to react immediately in September.

I am still curious about what we are seeing (3 times in the past 5 months) on those graphs but I can certainly tell everyone that none should worry and there is ZERO sign of YS to erupt.

ZERO = as in 0.0000000000000000000000000000 * 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.

reply to post by dalloway


A friend of mine just went to northern utah with his wife and 2 daughters, for 2 weeks and got back yesterday. He almost canceled their vacation beforehand .

Another friend lives 200 miles away in Casper. His dogs are now contiually "on him" because of what they continually are hearing. They're not clingy dogs. He's been intimately involved in events, and communications since 25th.

These people were privy to the content of the communications and, some have quite-a-good idea of the identity.They've no doubt about what's going on.

I don't expect there to be an eruption "tomorrow". I'd even be willing to go months out, maybe even years out, and bet there's nothing. But these observations are continually subject to reappraisal. "Imminent" is not in human time frames, and I would expect that a "super" volcano, of this size which such an enormous magma chamber (and expending) to have a long drawn-out period before eruptions, and this has had that from 2003 to present. I personally would not choose Jackson to be my vacation destination.

Then there's the chance that it might be a minor, non-explosive eruption, like any one of the 300 or so eruptions since the last "super eruption" 640k years ago. Or it might not erupt at all. I'd put more hope in it not erupting at all, than it not being an explosive eruption though.

My "Hoo Hah" was direct at the poster, not my overall attitude, and is in regard to the overall response I've gotten here from "some", not all. I mean, c'mon, "prove I'm a geologist, or I'm a fraud?" And, no, the only avenues I'm pursuing to make people aware are not just "here" and another forum. . Presuming all I'm doing is all that is evident here, is not exactly an accurate sampling.

.

Originally posted by Ear-Responsible
Anyone know how to get equake to work w/ the latest version of firefox?

Any help is greatly appreciated

edit on 25-2-2011 by Ear-Responsible because: (no reason given)

I dont know either, but I bumped this in hoping that someone would know the answer. I really miss my E-Quake App. I tried to go back to the older version of Firefox but they wouldn't let me.

Can anyone help us get E-Quake back Please??? Thank you..

My favorite site to monitor the activity at yellowstone is down since yesterday:

www.isthisthingon.org...

Does anybody know what happened?

reply to post by PuterMan


C'mon, malign Lowenstern? He's obviously not leading the field work. I have had someone on-site in many places I do extended field work. The last time I let them wander into that fieldwork that degreed jackass was rolling an m-48 grenade in his hand and saying "hey, guys!". Even though it was only a paint grenade, for target practice, one little servo-gear going one tooth over would be enough to take off his hand. My point here is that Lowenstern is not involved in the ongoing analysis of Yellowstone, and was not involved in the investigations. He's a public relations "face" guy. Stop with the melodrama.

I've got news for you, this isn't about you, nor I, nor any one of the reputations of those intimately involved. This is about the reality of what's going on at Yellowstone. This isn't an ego game. Your ego does not need to be given wing with every post, and does not need to be so vested in this discussion. You might consider toning it down "just a tad" As far as I understand, if you want to make an assertion that microseisisms, or other signatures look like the signature(s) under consideration here, then you make your case yourself. You don't play "fetch" with a gofer list of things. That's not the way a discussion, nor a counter argument, is made here, nor any forum I've ever been on.

And answer what question? As far as I know my response was not verbatim from anywhere, with the exception of the "Two Events' post. If you imagine I'm going to go on a fishing trip for you, when you don't even provide "a claim" of what appears like the signatures on the 25th, you're seriously deluded.

Dogs in Casper are probably sick from the water. There's lots of fracking around Casper.

Nothing is happening at Yellowstone at this time. Just the odd micro-quake here and there.

And bad weather.

But what about the deformation?

"Ground Deformation Summary: Careful analysis of the Yellowstone GPS data shows that the period of accelerated Yellowstone caldera uplift, beginning in 2004, has stopped. Some GPS stations exhibit little change and others reflect slight subsidence. A record of recent ground displacement can be found at:
pboweb.unavco.org...×eries=raw

reply to post by kennylee


I have had the same problem with equake and firefox for quite awhile with their new version.
Until a little while ago when the same question on another thread from the same poster was put up and a reply came with this website.

I tried it and for the first time in at least a year, I now have equake back.

addons.mozilla.org...

sorry, this might work better

addons.mozilla.org...

Sorry, there is a little something something happening at Yellowstone. A small quake, maybe 2.0 mag near YMR. Location is probably near the site of the 2010 swarm.

Originally posted by Trip3
reply to post by PuterMan

 

C'mon, malign Lowenstern? He's obviously not leading the field work. I have had someone on-site in many places I do extended field work. The last time I let them wander into that fieldwork that degreed jackass was rolling an m-48 grenade in his hand and saying "hey, guys!". Even though it was only a paint grenade, for target practice, one little servo-gear going one tooth over would be enough to take off his hand. My point here is that Lowenstern is not involved in the ongoing analysis of Yellowstone, and was not involved in the investigations. He's a public relations "face" guy. Stop with the melodrama.

Whether he is a public relations face or not he is a respected volcanologist and head of the YVO. One just does not malign professional colleagues in this manner. So I take it you are now claiming that you work in Yellowstone? This is a new change from having a friend who was doing this. Consistency does not seem to be your strong point.

I've got news for you, this isn't about you, nor I, nor any one of the reputations of those intimately involved. This is about the reality of what's going on at Yellowstone. This isn't an ego game. Your ego does not need to be given wing with every post, and does not need to be so vested in this discussion. You might consider toning it down "just a tad"

Precisely so why not discuss it instead of pontificating? The only one playing an ego game here is you.

As far as I understand, if you want to make an assertion that microseisisms, or other signatures look like the signature(s) under consideration here, then you make your case yourself. You don't play "fetch" with a gofer list of things. That's not the way a discussion, nor a counter argument, is made here, nor any forum I've ever been on.

Now how would that be possible considering I am not a geologist despite my box of rocks? Of course I have to use sources as does every other person on this site and in any scientific paper.

And answer what question? As far as I know my response was not verbatim from anywhere, with the exception of the "Two Events' post. If you imagine I'm going to go on a fishing trip for you, when you don't even provide "a claim" of what appears like the signatures on the 25th, you're seriously deluded.

What question? You need to ask that? Can you verify your premise that this is harmonic tremor. Is that clear enough for you?

I regret that I cannot understand your view that we should accept verbatim what you say and yet anything we say has to be proved. Very uneven that. Why should I make a "claim"? I obviously mistakenly thought that they were telemetry problems, and was then advised that this was not the case. It would be reasonable to deduce from that statement that I do not know for certain what they are and thus cannot make a claim.

You only the other hand claim that they are harmonic tremors yet continue persistently to avoid presenting any evidence to back your claim and decry the explanations of others. Your inability or unwillingness yet again to back your claims demonstrates a complete unawareness of the process of debate on this or any other forum be it an internet forum or a forum of peers reviewing a paper. Your logic is twisted and your facts are non-existent and until you provide evidence of your claims they are null and void. Unlike you I do not require your evidence to be your own work, but I do require it to be verifiable and I am sure that most on this particular forum would agree with that view.

Originally posted by PuterMan
How exactly is it that you reconcile all this? You understand of course that all we are interested in doing is establishing your credentials. We all accept that we are not experts, however you are categorically stating that you are. Is it unreasonable therefore for us to ask you to clarify some points?

I've not staked even my own beliefs on any claim of my own expertise. I specifically went to "experts" with established expertise and specifically focused on Yellowstone. While I am a professional licensed geologist, I've not spent a whole lot of time on volcanoes or studying them. Your fishing for my own credentials isn't a game I'm willing to play.

Originally posted by PuterMan

That is why having a "box of rocks" does not make one a geologist.

And yet you suggested that as a point to attempt to prove I was not a geologist.

Is Puterman a volcanologist? A geologist? Does he have a "box with rocks" somewhere?

In the context of that particular post the inference was that a lack of a box of rocks disqualified me as a geologist or volcanologist. Now all of a sudden the possession of such a box does not make one a geologist, presumably because I indicated that I do possess one.

My reference to having a "box of rocks" not making one a geologist, is not any sort of an "attempt to prove" you're not a geologist! I'm pretty sure you're not a geologist by your own statement. I've used the phrase because I know many people have, or have had, a "box or rocks" at some point in their lives. I'm pretty certain that a "box of rocks" is not what qualifies one to be a geologist, nor a volcanologist,.

The point is many have a lay-interest in geology, but that doesn't make them a geologist C'mon stop this posturing. This is long-past the point of silly. It's wasting everyone's time, and no one is getting anything out of reading it, and it's not serving you any either.

Originally posted by PuterMan
It should not be difficult for you to provide the workings of that verification then without divulging the name of the "on-site PhD volcanologist" in that case. You have to realise that you are making a very serious allegation here and no one is going to believe you without proof. Deny ignorance is our motto and whilst on some of the forums on ATS things may be a bit more "way out" shall we say, on this science based forum we require evidence.

"very serious allegation here". That harmonic tremors appear at a "volcano"? That these are generally considered a precursor of an eruption because they represent magma and/or gas intruded under positive pressure into fracture conduits? Do you really think my contact sent me all his work on why those are harmonic tremors? Perhaps you imagine I demanded of him, that he "show his work"?

Requiring evidence is a great thing and I applaud it. However sometimes the simple fact is that evidence is not at hand. Also, in two posts, I've shown quite clearly why there's been no public statement on these issues, and a shortage of information, both regarding the "Memorandum on Scientific Integrity", and how quite unsavory that mandate is, and also how insufficient YVO's "Protocols for Hazard Response" is, following on and subject to that Memorandum.

I don't think you fully understand the scope of conditions nor the application of these policies, Here's a brief example: four weeks after the initial field effort to Yellowstone beginning on the 27th, much to 'our' surprise, two small track rigs were leaving Yellowstone and stopped at a company to have the track repaired on one of these rigs. The driver of the flatbed containing those two rigs, made the informal comment that they'd been up at Yellowstone for 4 weeks doing work there. Two days later that company was visited by a representative of the federal government, and it was impressed upon the owner that both he and his employees are subject to that presidential Memorandum, and unable to speak upon whatever they might have learned. The next morning a portion of that Memorandum was posted on the wall, and the business owner held a brief employee meeting where he indicated their obligation, without any reference whatsoever to Yellowstone.

Puterman, I've no doubt you're intelligent, and I think the same of Robin, however no amount of posturing here is going to change the conditions of what I know to be true, nor the strong implication of what was found during these recent field investigations.

Seriously, I'm amazed you even sat down to type this last post. It shows an overwhelmingly egocentric motivation throughout, without much regard for substance and facts, much less any reasonable argument.. I suspect you're better than that.

Here's something new about Yellowstone,

www.greatfallstribune.com...

reply to post by herenow


Thank you so much my friend! I have my E-Quake back after almost a year! Very much appreciated!

@Robin.

Is there a map of all the fracking wells around Yellowstone? It would be interesting to see...

Come on people, from reading both sides of the debate its clear to see that we who visit this thread would benefit so much more from your heads working together rather than clashing. Both sides have a similar interest and concern with yellowstone, and for good reason, lets just get past the bickering and present both sides interpretations of whats going on there.

This bickering is not what this thread is about and im sure most will agree.

reply to post by PuterMan


How do you extract that I indicated or implied in anything I said, that I am "now claiming that I work in Yellowstone"? I'm tempted to retract my previous statement about believing you to be intelligent.

As far as microseisms, I'm pretty certain that none of those papers assert that signature looks anything like harmonic tremors, in fact they are quite dissimilar signatures. I'm also pretty certain that if Jake Lowenstern did offer an sort of claim these specific signatures might be microseisms, he did not provide any evidence as to why this might be the case, nor direct you to any sort of microseism showing them to be similar. I'm also presuming that if Jake Lowenstern wrote you these things, regarding those specific signatures on the 25th of January, that you could reasonably provide this correspondence here, without any violation of confidentiality, as Jowenstern is in fact the PR representative for YVO.


I'm not asking, nor expecting you to "accept" anything I say, verbatim or in any portion. I came here to alert people as to what is going on (regardless of whether you have proof and believe, or not). I'm not here to win any argument with you. I'm not here because I've any desire to be a long-term member of ATS.

However I will point out that people here did, in fact, find posts of my own elsewhere, that corroborate the time table on the arrival at Yellowstone, and within two and a half hours of their earliest possible arrival there, did take down all but one of the seismic stations at Yellowstone at 22:25. And then did return these stations online the next morning with strong evidence of seismic refraction work being done, as indicated by the pronounced p-wave signatures. While not having looked, I suspect that someone even commented in this thread that the seismic stations went down on the 27th, and I would bet money that person was Robin.

I'm not involved at Yellowstone. I have no way of knowing that they would shut down those seismic stations - beyond what I had stated well in advance.

As always, the choice is yours as to what you believe. Quite clearly you have no personal stake in what you choose to believe, as you apparently live in Ireland.

To those who might live much more proximal to Yellowstone, and have much more at stake than merely an over-inflated ego, I sincerely hope that they consider something entirely different than your own appraisal might be true... and thus remain alert and prepared.

news.change.org...