Whats going on at yellowstone?

Originally posted by PuterMan

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.

Sure, you did; you recognized that the software has no idea of comparison of scale,and you don't know the difference between real signal and fabricated noise. It's quite apparent that you're comparing two different things, and relying on the fact that the "black box" software produces something even remotely valid (not to mention comparable) from the analog graphic. and this should be rather obvious, but then I've been saying the comparison was silly and does not, and could not, "prove" anything from the start.

My reference to your comparing "apples and oranges" was rather inaccurate. This is more like "apples and baseballs".. with the latter heavily in invalid from the start and then heavily arltered with a conversion process that,only worsens the problem. But you got your answer that "they're nothing alike!" so you're happier than a squirrel with a nut. But then again, this wasn't about the facts,

We're not arguing "my points", we're arguing Yellowstone. I'm quite certain that there was no such class offered as "seismometers". I'm also certain that none of my methodologies allowed me to sit a cozy office 100's of miles from the field, and we pretty much had to generate the seismic waves ourselves. .

I'm not here to "prove" anything with harmonics, because overall harmonics are irrelevant to the overall processes under consideration, and Yellowstone's current status. You've been hell-bent to ignore that your "proof" could never possibly be any sort of proof as to anything, and the fact that science itself does not provide "proofs"... but these are just "small details'. Perspective always helps.

I've not even come here saying "Yellowstone is going to erupt!". We don't know and I'm pretty sure "they" don't know either. Today it's pretty certain that it is not going to erupt. However there's a good likelihood that it's going to do so "sometime" in the future.

reply to post by Trip3


Still wriggling Trip? Still refusing to validate anything you have said and still avoiding answering anything that might show you up in a bad light as having little of no knowledge of seismometers despite pontificating about them. Can't answer the questions Trip? Come on give us the explanation of the Reynolds number at least. OK so you nothing about seismos and default earthquake depths. At least show that you actually do know something about the Reynolds number since you have posted it twice now.

We're not arguing "my points", we're arguing Yellowstone. I'm quite certain that there was no such class offered seismometers. I'm also certain that none of my methodologies allowed me to sit a cozy office 100's of miles from the field, and we pretty much had to generate the seismic waves ourselves. .

Pardon? Flatulence was it?

:shk:

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Trip3

 

Still wriggling Trip? Still refusing to validate anything you have said and still avoiding answering anything that might show you up in a bad light as having little of no knowledge of seismometers despite pontificating about them. Can't answer the questions Trip? Come on give us the explanation of the Reynolds number at least. OK so you nothing about seismos and default earthquake depths. At least show that you actually do know something about the Reynolds number since you have posted it twice now.

We're not arguing "my points", we're arguing Yellowstone. I'm quite certain that there was no such class offered seismometers. I'm also certain that none of my methodologies allowed me to sit a cozy office 100's of miles from the field, and we pretty much had to generate the seismic waves ourselves. .

Pardon? Flatulence was it?

:shk:

edit on 3/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

I dont' have to "wriggle" as there's nothing to "wriggle" about. I've nowhere claimed to be any sort of expert on seismometers and certainly haven't "pontificated" about them. In fact I've been appreciative of your providing the technical stats for these.

Those claims, as with your entire shtick, are nothing but your own fabricated strawmen.

You claimed to be able to provide "proof" and I stated quite clearly that no sort of proof was possible. I've further indicated that the signatures being, or not being, "harmonic tremors", was irrelevant, as harmonics are only a portion of the spectrum in which a variety volcanic tremors occur, for varied causes. We did this at length in PMs. There, and here, your recourse is to engage in ad hominem slurs. In fact you began our PM exchange with a personal attack, obviously as a means to bypass the forum terms of conduct. My hope was that the PM exchanges would allow a straightforward exchange between us, without any need for nonsense. However you persisted and I ultimately asked you to stop the PMs, which you did not regard immediately until I further expressed my sincerity.

I've referenced the Reynolds number as appropriate to exchanges. I'm not interested in pontificating on the matter for the sake of bluster, unlike some, But then I've also not fully referenced that paper (which you've also commented on me referencing) to address specific applicability to this discussion. Curiously, the same is also true of other papers as well. Perhaps there's some dark plot in need of abundant straw here, regarding this method, eh?

None of the above changes the fact that your "proof" was fundamentally, procedurally and technically invalid.

I see many of you are satisfied waiting for this disaster to occur instead of taking the necessary steps to prepare. I have several sources who can confirm this but have asked to remain anonymous for their own well being. We are looking at an imminent eruption her folks, somewhere in the span of 6 weeks to 600k years we cannot keep messing around. If you are located in the continental united states or Canada it is time to sell your house, you may have to take a hit in price to accommodate a quick sale. You will then need to quit your job and buy an RV and buy survival supplies. I think beef jerky and mt dew will be the most appropriate and least likely to draw attention, we do not want to start a panic after all. It is also time you start evaluating your relationships with those around you, frankly speaking some will be dead weight and would be better for all concerned to just ditch them. Once you have your new house on wheels the next step is to gas up and start heading south. I cannot give you a final destination just head south till you run out of gas or land.



Godspeed everybody.

reply to post by ThomasMcologist


I not sure I would support that level of alarm. It seems a bit extreme, to say the least.

But then I don't have all the data.

reply to post by Trip3


The trouble is Trip that all you are capable of doing is attempting to hide your inabilities behind a barrage of words which frankly does nothing. Yet again you fail to make any validation of your claims, to provide any explanation of, for example the Reynolds numbers by waving them off because you are not able to explain.

All of your posts are nothing more than a boatload of completely unsubstantiated rubbish or cherry picked phrases from learned articles that you apparently don't really understand. You steadfastly refuse to accept any evidence against your pet theory and you additionally purposefully and wilfully twist anything said by anyone else. Throwing ad hominem and strawman about at inappropriate places does nothing to support your so called argument.

What exactly the point behind this continued waffle is I really do not know but it has no scientific basis and has been disproven not just by the members of ATS but by professional geologists and volcanologists, which it is patently obvious from your responses you are not.

As far as any meaningful discussion of Yellowstone is concerned all you are able to bring to the table is supposition and hearsay, and when challenged you change your statements to suit the current moment. Not very convincing at all.

For the very last time I ask you to substantiate your original claim that the signature seen on the YSB seismogram for 25th Jan 2011 is harmonic tremor since that was the purpose of your original postings. As far as I am concerned your failure to do that means you have no credibility as a geologist and your claim is without substance if you will not support it by utilising the normal scientific means available.

reply to post by Trip3


we can read puterman's post we dont need your interpretation of it Trip3.
Why not answer the many questions that have been repeated to you over and over again by more than one user here in this thread?

reply to post by Trip3


OK. I will take that as a statement that you will not or cannot backup your claims by scientific method and just wish to continue throwing words around. Goodbye Trip. You no longer exist as far as I am concerned.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Trip3

 

OK. I will take that as a statement that you will not or cannot backup your claims by scientific method and just wish to continue throwing words around. Goodbye Trip. You no longer exist as far as I am concerned.

edit on 3/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

Your reference here to "scientific method" is as utterly devoid of relevancy as is your reference to a non-existent "proof". There is no 'backup" that can be done by any application of "scientific method", but that is another faux posturing there attempting to imply you're representing any sort of scientific method yourself.

Here's your unofficial Yellowstone report for today, March 3, 2011.

It's snowing and a little mild, a little gusty.
There are no current swarms.
Uplift has basically stopped, deformation minimal.
Old Faithful is still blowing steam.
No harmonic tremors or volcanic tremors showing on the webicorders. (note, I'm not a registered siesmologist)
The sky is not falling.

reply to post by Trip3


If you knew what was really going on you would be terrified. You better invest in an rv now, once this things hits its going to be difficult to find anything even comparable. In a pinch I guess you could run off with a uhaul and live out of that, you need something to carry all of your supplies in.

Originally posted by Trip3
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

 

I'm pretty certain I've answered what I could, in a manner that was accurate.

Unless you've got some question you feel needs addressing, why would you make a vague reference to such?

Trip,
Your right,. never mind
Enjoy the thread,.

Originally posted by Trip3
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

 

I'm pretty certain I've answered what I could, in a manner that was accurate.

Unless you've got some question you feel needs addressing, why would you make a vague reference to such?

You might be a really nice person and all, and your points are at least interesting. I do not mean this in an offensive manner at all, but I am very much missing the quality of this thread, and it really does seem like all that you do is spew personal opinion without backing it up with data. And I agree with the other poster, I have no need to go line by line and challenge you. Just support what you are saying with some data.

There have been many arguments in this thread before, but both sides usually have supporting facts that they show. I don't post here myself, but I read through here often. Been avoiding it lately, Puterman presents data, you don't. Argue back and forth. Puterman presents data again. Argue back and forth. And while I do respect his work, I am not a card-carrying member of his fan club, so I am not defending him. Rather, I am defending this thread. Please let it go.