Whats going on at yellowstone?

By the way, small quake just hit the park. Detected in GEE near PB.207, and near Robin's favorite, WY.YMR.

That's ht too, didn't ya know?

EDIT: And there it is, shown here at YMR:

www.quake.utah.edu...

look near bottom.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Shenon
Until then,most of the Data is useless,because its beeing compared to normal,much smaller Volcanos.

I used to use the exact same argument. But aside from the massive magma plume and hydrothermal system, there are going to be a lot of similar things to other "normal" volcanoes. We can't just discount those. They have to be considered as well.

True,but consider that a Super-Volcano can do small and big Erruptions. Or a small one followed by a big one. Picture the YVO saying "Dont worry,the signs point torwards a small Erruption,nothing to worry about..." ,because they compare those Signs to those of other,smaller Volcanos. As would many others here i think.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
By the way, small quake just hit the park. Detected in GEE near PB.207, and near Robin's favorite, WY.YMR.

That's ht too, didn't ya know?

Don´t know if that was aimed at me,but i´m just trying to debate here. You seem to know so much,so you have to answer my Questions to educuate me,someone who knows so little and wants to know more

reply to post by Shenon


lol, no, not at you. They know who they are.

I don't know nothing. Not compared to the YVO. People should really respect their opinion more.

reply to post by Shenon


I think when harmonic tremors hit Yellowstone, it will be obvious. In fact, who knows, there may be no hamonic tremors when it erupts. My hypothesis would show swarms all over the park. Those waves are tidal, or something. I'm still battling a debate in my head. When you see them again, check lots of other webicorders. In fact go check all the ones on the Memphis site and you'll find the microsiesms everywhere and some "look" dramatic. They show up all over the eastern United States. I didn't check the west. Too many quakes and squiggly lines would make my head hurt.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Shenon

 

Well if you think about it, even though there is a massive magma chamber under the park, why would any conduits, even if they are still empty for the moment, be any bigger than they would be under any other volcano? They probably wouldn't be. They'd be on average around the same size as anywhere else. Sure, the magma plume is big, but that doesn't automatically change the size of any conduits the magma could fill.

And considering that consistency, I believe it would be reasonable to expect any ht that occurred to be roughly the same as anywhere else- except for the possibility that due to the huge volume and pressure of the magma, it may rush through those cavities faster than a smaller magma chamber could push it.

So in that case, perhaps we should be asking how that increased velocity would affect the pitch of the fundamental in the case of an ht there. And my senses tell me that the pitch may actually be higher, not lower- due to that increased velocity over what a smaller chamber could drive it- given the exact same empty conduit.

Good hypothesis, but does not correlate with the data.

In a previous post HERE, I pointed out the that same signatures in mid-November 2008, resulted in the quakes swarm of some 1,200 quakes December '08 to January '09.

There's also a good chance that the periphery around the old caldera is more fractured, and the center of the calder, where the primary, toroid-shaped magma chamber is located, is not full and thereby not subjecting local conduits to positive pressure injection.

Furthermore the 2009 inSAR mapping shows the a rise in the expected area north of the lake, but also subsidence in a periphery of the caldera footprint, which coincides with the fault zones (page 3, bottom image)

And as far as HTs, flow is described in terms of the Reynolds number (Re):

Re = ud/v

v (kinematic/shear viscosity) = п/р


u = flow velocity
d = dimension of the flow
п = flow dynamic viscosity
р = flow density


As flows increase in kinematic viscosity, they can attain the same Re number at a greater "d" dimension.

Originally posted by Trip3
There's also a good chance that the periphery around the old caldera is more fractured, and the center of the calder, where the primary, toroid-shaped magma chamber is located, is not full and thereby not subjecting local conduits to positive pressure injection.

Well if it's not subjecting local conduits to positive pressure injection, then how in the heck is it subjecting conduits anywhere near YSB to injection, much less creating ht's there?

Sheesh, talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Trip3
There's also a good chance that the periphery around the old caldera is more fractured, and the center of the calder, where the primary, toroid-shaped magma chamber is located, is not full and thereby not subjecting local conduits to positive pressure injection.

Well if it's not subjecting local conduits to positive pressure injection, then how in the heck is it subjecting conduits anywhere near YSB to injection, much less creating ht's there?

Sheesh, talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

By "local" I meant local, or adjacent to, the main magma chamber and in referencing that main chamber, I am referencing the inactivity in the central portion of the park and caldera footprint itself.

reply to post by Trip3


Inactivity in the central portion of the park? When not just 1.5 hours ago or so there was a quake there? Look at the top post on this page. No no, better yet look at this:

www.quake.utah.edu...

As a matter of fact, I challenge you to find even ONE earthquake in the recent past originating at YSB, closer than any other station to the epicenter. Activity has centered in or directly around the caldera, or west or northwest. Dude, you've got NOTHING. I mean absolute ZERO to back even the slightest NOTION of ht's happening at YSB.

GIVE

IT

UP

ALREADY.

@Shenon
About your question about Harmonic Tremor as it was explained to me by a volcanologist years ago.

Harmonic Tremor is a reading and the size of the moving magma doesn't matter, neither the magma chamber. The reading could be different because of the type and output of a seismograph but for one type of seismograph the HT reading would be the same at any volcano in the world. So to answer your question HT at YS would look the same as HT at Eyja or HT at Taupo if the same type of seismograph was put in place at those 3 different locations.

Look it as water.
In a glass at home, in Yellowstone lake or in the Ocean, water is still water. H2O

As for those readings we are talking about it can't be HT as they are showing up on too many graphs all over the place. But I still can't rule out volcanic tremors, activity. Only problem I am having with possible volcanic activity is with the duration of what we are reading on the graphs. Ongoing activity, non stop, for 10+ 15+ hours make no sense. Even if it was "deep" it wouldn't show up that long on the graphs. Still puzzled.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Trip3

 

Inactivity in the central portion of the park? When not just 1.5 hours ago or so there was a quake there? Look at the top post on this page. No no, better yet look at this:

www.quake.utah.edu...

As a matter of fact, I challenge you to find even ONE earthquake in the recent past originating at YSB, closer than any other station to the epicenter. Activity has centered in or directly around the caldera, or west or northwest. Dude, you've got NOTHING. I mean absolute ZERO to back even the slightest NOTION of ht's happening at YSB.

GIVE

IT

UP

ALREADY.

Your games and jejune posturing are tiresome.

There's a couple of fundamental mechanics that need to be recognized. First, "quakes", i.e. localized seismic events, having an epicenter and focal point, are different than the sort of seismic signature we're discussing, which have no epicenter nor focal point, and are not localized events. Furthermore "a quake" is not a primary signature of any sort of volcanic flow, but can be a secondary effect, from fracturing or faulting rock. There are also "hybrid" signatures of less-strong p-wave signatures resulting from rock that may be immersed in magma and partially melt, and more plastic.

As a simple model, you also need to understand that that area of inflation and deflation of the primary magma chamber, may not involve the peripheral flow of magma through conduits, fractures and faults. The interconnected networks of these conduits are more likely to reside on the periphery of such a chamber (as there is more conduit and less void), and these can occur both laterally and vertically.

These volcanic tremors we're talking about, result from the injection of magma and its constituents, under positive pressure through those conduits, and by varying mechanics, may even produce a harmonic resonance, but this generally occurs in a more limited range.

Here are 3 recognized types mechanics that can produce volcanic tremors (and in some ranges HTs):

1) eddy shedding (Faber, 1995),
2) slug flow (Tritton, 1988)
3) the “soda bottle” (Soltzberg et al., 1997).

The point here is not the absolute presence of any harmonic resonance (HT) as this is only the maintenance of flow within more narrow parameters, but rather evidence of flow, and expansion itself. These points are overly simplified (not nearly so much as your own) but basically true.

Reference:

"Physical models for the source of Lascar’s harmonic tremor"
Published: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 101 (2000) 183–198
M. Hellweg

OK fellow posters,
I'm not really that concerned regarding HT or no HT. I would expect that if Yellowstone were headed towards an eruption, we would see lots of rapid inflation, lots of constant seismicity that gets shallower through time, a change in the temperature and composition of the hydrothermal systems and possibly even cracks forming in the land around the caldera.

Originally posted by Roald
OK fellow posters,
I'm not really that concerned regarding HT or no HT. I would expect that if Yellowstone were headed towards an eruption, we would see lots of rapid inflation, lots of constant seismicity that gets shallower through time, a change in the temperature and composition of the hydrothermal systems and possibly even cracks forming in the land around the caldera.

In a quiescence between major eruptions of some 640k years, the 8 years from 2003 to 2010 is just a blink-of-the-eye.

Check this out

Notice anything curious in the West-East and North-South transects? How about the horizontal line about 2 miles depth. What do you suppose that represents?

It seems to be evident only under the previous caldera footprint. That's strange.

Originally posted by Trip3
This is not about my own "points".

It is very much about your points just as much as it is about mine or anyone elses points.

So I take it from this that your points do not have to stand up to scrutiny Trip and everyone else's points do?

The fact is that you the self proclaimed geologist appear to know nothing at all about seismometers and were not aware that an E channel is extremely short period yet claimed this was a broadband channel. Then when taken to task about that you bluster that it is not about 'your' (erroneous) points.

You could have stopped with your own recognition that the software did not recognize any sort of seismic signal in the transfer to an audio file. At that point, any and all argument becomes moot.

Once again your complete lack of an understanding is demonstrated and a twisting of other peoples words.

At no time did I say that the software did not recognise any sort of seismic signal. All data is transferred to the audio. What I said was that there was NO HT and that I had not recognised the single spike that was on that image.

I only showed a small portion of the 8 hours of data. There is plenty of evidence of seismic activity on the full audio but not of HT. Since the signal we were discussing was prevalent throughout there was no need to waste storage space with the full audio, or images of analysis beyond the first half hour.

Through all this Trip you STILL have not provided ANY evidence for your claims.

Originally posted by Trip3
These volcanic tremors we're talking about, result from the injection of magma and its constituents, under positive pressure through those conduits, and by varying mechanics, may even produce a harmonic resonance, but this generally occurs in a more limited range.

Hmm.
You mean these readings could be the sign that new magma is finding it's way to the chamebr. Interresting.

New magma from below entering the chamber could make the pressure in the chamber increase. Now the ground above the chamber would "push" on the chamber itself because of the increase in pressure. This would create what I would call a "wobbling" effect and making in some way the chamber shake, esepcially at the extremities of the chamber and generate the tremors we are seeing on the graphs outside the caldera.

1. The pressure of the ground would be spread, pushed (not sure how to explain) to the extremities of the chamber. Like when you push on water the "force/energie" is pushed to the extremities creating small, microseims, waves.

2. Could explain why we don't see those readings on the graphs above the caldera but only on the ones outside the caldera. The pressure on the roof of the chamber would come from the ground above and pushed down and sidewards so the wobbling would only be on the extremities.

3. The duration 10+ 15+ hours would make sense and also the pattern as it would probably take that long for the "wobbling" to stop. We also can faintly see the wobbling going on for longer, sometimes a couple of days.

4. Would explain why we don't have exact copies of the event on the different graphs at the same moment meanwhile being defenitly linked to the same stuff.

Although I don't like it and I hope I am completely wrong as this would mean new magma has been injected 4 times in nearly 5 months.

reply to post by Shenon


Shenon, HT is HT whether it is from a volcano, a super volcano or from other sources such as the geysers (and after reading the article that Roald provided that explains some of the HT type noise I have 'heard' in the park before.) undersea chimneys (black smokers) etc.

There is a recording out on the web of what is claimed to be HT at Mount St Helens.

There is a disclaimer on that page that says the the site owner has been told this may not be HT. By whom? Don't know but that sure as hell is HT and is just the same as the HT recorded in Alaska (for which I can't find the file just now)

Here is a frequency analysis of the file.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ceab6a532f3.png[/atsimg]

The fundamental frequency glides upward from less than 1 Hz to as high as 30 Hz in the span of just a few minutes prior to eruption. Then, a relative seismic silence of a few tens of seconds precedes the eruption. Over the years, several different mechanisms have been invoked to explain occurrences of lower frequency gliding harmonic tremor on other volcanoes. The most popular explanations attribute the gliding to changing properties of a resonating crack, or to the repeated excitation of a source with gradually varying inter-event time intervals. Indeed, the first case of gliding at Redoubt was preceded by an 8 hour swarm of repeating high-frequency earthquakes in which the earthquakes comprising this swarm became gradually more frequent, eventually blending smoothly into tremor.

Abstract

reply to post by Trip3

These volcanic tremors we're talking about

Oh, we are talking about volcanic tremors now are we. My bad. I thought all this started as a discussion of harmonic tremors.

So perhaps you can now provide evidence that these are volcanic tremors?

And as far as HTs, flow is described in terms of the Reynolds number (Re):

Re = ud/v

v (kinematic/shear viscosity) = п/р


u = flow velocity
d = dimension of the flow
п = flow dynamic viscosity
р = flow density


As flows increase in kinematic viscosity, they can attain the same Re number at a greater "d" dimension.

From an earlier post. How about since, you love quoting this so much, you explaining it in simple terms for those here that do not understand what this means? Anyone can quote a formula from a paper. If you do so however one has to assume that you understand it, and that you are not just quoting it for show, so explain it please.

Notice anything curious in the West-East and North-South transects? How about the horizontal line about 2 miles depth. What do you suppose that represents?

For goodness sake, I thought you were a geologist.

What that represents is where the system has used a quake of indeterminate depth default. USGS uses defaults of 2, 10 and 35 miles. Not sure how it is determined which one is used but in a batch of many quakes one would expect to see a line at one of these depths. One would have assumed that a geologist would know that.

reply to post by Trip3

.....may not involve the peripheral flow of magma through conduits, fractures and faults.........result from the injection of magma and its constituents, under positive pressure through those conduits

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Perhaps you can explain that post in better detail.

In, again, the interests of science, I've added a "Target Depth" field to the Yellowstoner's quake report request form (this one). That way you can see exactly how many quakes occurred at any given depth (plus or minus 0.001 miles). I love science.

Oh; it ignores a depth of "0", so if you want to see the really really shallow ones, set the target depth to "0.001" instead. I leave all analysis and conclusions to the reader. Happy hunting.

Originally posted by PuterMan
Through all this Trip you STILL have not provided ANY evidence for your claims.

Bingo.

At this point in time, given the denial of the YVO, our own various independent investigations and subsequent confirmation that there are no ht's occurring anywhere in Yellowstone- Trip3 is flat out lying as to his original claims. He's been diverting, and trying to weasel out of it slowly.