If You Ever Doubted That Big Quakes Can Trigger Activity at Volcanoes...

I just learned a new word. Metastable. hehehehehehe......I like it.

Seriously though, I feel a little stupid for knowing absolutely nothing about this. Never heard of it before. Having said that, my immediate reaction (althogh quite possibly wrong) is that if this super volcano is being fed by magma created from a subduction zone, then the massive in-flow of magma as well as the affect from quakes along that same zone would all tie in. Right??? Meaning that any movement along said zone would have an immediate impact on the volcano, hence the swarms. Now THAT is a scary thought.


ETA: so check out the latest seismic map. Several very near it:



But check out the depths!!!

MAP 4.9 2011/10/22 11:02:56 -20.146 -68.672 117.8 POTOSI, BOLIVIA
MAP 5.1 2011/10/20 23:26:44 -22.885 -66.296 224.9 JUJUY, ARGENTINA
MAP 4.3 2011/10/18 15:48:43 -23.938 -66.964 174.3 JUJUY, ARGENTINA
MAP 4.4 2011/10/18 08:26:28 -23.477 -66.897 178.2 JUJUY, ARGENTINA
MAP 5.2 2011/10/18 01:39:33 -23.212 -66.584 192.4 JUJUY, ARGENTINA

Now what do you that indicates?

source for above image and info

Originally posted by westcoast
I just learned a new word. Metastable. hehehehehehe......I like it.

Seriously though, I feel a little stupid for knowing absolutely nothing about this. Never heard of it before. Having said that, my immediate reaction (althogh quite possibly wrong) is that if this super volcano is being fed by magma created from a subduction zone, then the massive in-flow of magma as well as the affect from quakes along that same zone would all tie in. Right??? Meaning that any movement along said zone would have an immediate impact on the volcano, hence the swarms. Now THAT is a scary thought.

No worries.....I feel stupid all the time and this may be a stupid comment

Is it Methane driven??? I have been wondering but just now put the two words (your new word included) together and this is what I came up with!!!

pangea.stanford.edu...

OCEANIC ERUPTION AS A CAUSE OF MASS EXTINCTION The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic. Figuratively speaking, the erupting region ‘‘boils over,’’ ejecting a large amount of methane and other gases (e.g., CO2 , H2 S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain). The airmethane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; as such mixtures form in different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions 2 and conflagrations destroy most of the terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbon dioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the upper atmosphere, where they may remain for several years (Turco et al., 1991); the resulting darkness and global cooling may provide an additional kill mechanism. Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. The outcome of the competition between the cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict (Turco et al., 1991; Pierrehumbert, 2002). Upon release of a significant portion of the dissolved methane, the ocean settles down, and the entire sequence of events (i.e., development of anoxia, accumulation of dissolved methane, the metastable state, eruption) begins anew. No external cause is required to bring about a methane-driven eruption—its mechanism is self-contained, and implies that eruptions are likely to occur repeatedly at the same location

This is extremely interesting. Thank you very much for creating this thread. I was doing some interweb surfing last night and came upon something I had never heard of before. Basically it was a hypothesis, with pretty decent evidence mind you, that earthquakes and volcanic activity can trigger the same activity along the same ley line.

I had not done much research on ley lines, but from what little I have read, this could be a relatively big deal. Supposedly there was actually a scientific paper published on the subject in the 80's I think...Not positive on that by any means. I just thought this was relevant to what you posted, so I thought I would express this point, and maybe others can look in to it if interested. S&F!!!

reply to post by westcoast

Meaning that any movement along said zone would have an immediate impact on the volcano

Yes, and possibly worse than thought. There have always been some good sized quakes infrequently in Bolivia but I just came across this:

Bolivia at risk of megaquake: study (May 07, 2011)

PARIS — Some two million people in Bolivia face the risk of a magnitude 8.9 megaquake, 125 times stronger than the previously calculated potential maximum, according a study published Sunday.

The findings, reported in Nature Geoscience, came as a surprise, the researchers said.

"Rupture of the entire locked section by one earthquake could result in shaking of magnitudes up to 8.9," Brooks said in a statement.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


All that pressure the cork's gotta pop sometime. If it is as large as the yellowstone caldera then it is a super volcanoe and the ashe clouds from those eruptions are extinction level events because they can literally cover the entire planet.

Bad ju ju friend. maybe this is why the governments of th world are building are those deep underground military bunkers and loading them up with genebanks and mass stores of food and water. They are preparing to let the world be destroyed while they attempt to save their own asses!

reply to post by PuterMan


Hmm, now that's curious- since when can a 60 mile fault produce an 8.9 quake? I thought it took a fault length of several hundred km to get that size a quake? Of course, no one expected a 9.1 on that section of the Japan fault either. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

That article is seriously relevant to the triggering issue here.

So this volcano, growing so fast, so big is literally sandwiched between two mega faults. One of which produced the biggest quake ever recorded (9.5), and the other under a sectional lockdown. AND it is proven to respond directly to S-waves from 1600 km away. This other fault under lockdown is only 350 to 400 km away. If it goes bigtime with an 8.9, what will that volcano do? Cause at that point it will be bigger and more fragile than it is now.

You got any estimate on attenuation of energy/power over distance for this part of the world? Someone needs to figure out what an 8.9 that close would do to that volcano. More power, much closer, with a bigger magma chamber.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster if I've ever heard one.

reply to post by TrueAmerican



Magma inflation at a rate of change of 1 m^3/s certainly gave me pause. Granted I know very little about volcanoes, but that increase seems pretty significant in terms of a non cataclysmic-like change in volume when either caused by or correlated with earthquake activity. I mean I'm at my desk and plugging in values just using a spherical model and ... OKAY.

Very interesting thread.

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

I mean I'm at my desk and plugging in values just using a spherical model and ... OKAY.

AND??? What did you come up with? Just gonna leave us hanging?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Here you go TA.

The Turkish earthquake just trigger the dormant volcano Nemrut it seems.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ETA: All I can find is this which says they fear it might erupt.

www.panarmenian.net...


FORGET IT. Just RSOE being sphincters as usual.

reply to post by PuterMan


lol, PuterMan gets bamboozled!

Not for long though!

The first time RSOE was wrong, I almost stopped going there, the second time, that was it. That site sucks.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Only went there because it was linked on Quake Watch.

I NEVER EVER go there otherwise.

All over the internet sites are proclaiming Yellowstone Caldera can wipe out the world or some garbage like that. I say garbage because I get tired of reading that stuff while I'm searching for real answers. What mass extinctions has the Yellowstone super volcano caused? Other than a regional disturbance and messing with global temperatures I haven't found any extinctions. All the hype about it doesn't seem supported. If I remember the Yellowstone eruptions only last a few days and not years. And the path of destruction depends on the direction of the wind. Also, it is not consistent with it's type of eruptions, sometimes explosive and other times you would have been safe walking. It's nothing compared to the Siberian or Deccan traps.

I've always wanted to link earthquakes to volcanic activity but other than shaking here and bulging way over there. There hasn't been any real link proven. Someone mentioned earlier that an earthquake caused the landslide that unleashed Mount St. Helens. I believe the earthquake was part of the landslide not the cause in the same way the landslide was part of the eruption. But it is not the same as the original post's claim of a distant quake causing volcanic activity. It would be cool if it was proven.

I'm also of the mind that all earthquakes around the pacific are related. It may be flawed but by releasing pressure in one area is gonna increase it elsewhere. It just makes sense to me.

I forget (after reading tons of different posts and I cannot see the posts while replying), did the volcano in question ever erupt or just expand?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I just saw this on line today and was going to post it up but saw that I was beaten to it by a few days. It sounds like it's growing into a super volcano?

Originally posted by underdogradio
Someone mentioned earlier that an earthquake caused the landslide that unleashed Mount St. Helens. I believe the earthquake was part of the landslide not the cause in the same way the landslide was part of the eruption.

Well you are free to believe as you wish, but I have been down this road before:



The quake triggered the landslide which uncorked the bulging lava dome and it exploded.

In this USGS video at 2:05, one of the scientists who was watching the seismographs that very morning May 18 1980 expressly describes that very quake as "larger than they had seen before.":



So much so he went running upstairs to jump on the radio.

The point is- one landslide triggered by a quake on an active volcano can spell bad news.

But it is not the same as the original post's claim of a distant quake causing volcanic activity. It would be cool if it was proven.

It is documented in the scientific paper at Harvard quoted in the OP. I don't know what more proof you want. It was so responsive to the S-waves, that its seismicity increased, then died down as the first round of S-waves dissipated, and then increased again the same way twice more for the second and third round of waves passing through it each time. That's damn sure enough proof for me that it responds to a large quake some 1600 km away.

Even though it didn't erupt, who's to say next time a closer, big quake wouldn't set the thing off? It's just one more thing to be aware of- especially if you live near there- which it appears not a whole lot of people do.

i am not any kind of expert on quakes/volcanoes but..........if it is known that the lava chamber is growwing at that high of a pace, could man not engineer a drilling or some other type of plan to release the pressure a bit so the probability of a mega cano exploding decreases?

Originally posted by Meekbot2000
could man not engineer a drilling or some other type of plan to release the pressure a bit so the probability of a mega cano exploding decreases?

Why sure! I'll email the USGS here in few and tell them we have a suicidal volunteer to go drill the hole.

I'm not sure now. I've seen nothing that suggests the earthquake increased volcanic activity. It actually sounds like seismic echos trapped in the magma chamber. It increased and decreased with the s-waves if the earthquake. Kinda like tapping on the end of a board with the opposite end attached to the side of a tub of water. I tend to take things with a grain of salt especially when it is something that has never been observed. I don't care what academic institution it comes from, until it's repeatable then there is no reason to get excited about it. So let's just calm down and observe some more.

As for Mount St Helens I know all the stories about it but the USGS isn't sure if the earthquake was the cause of the landslide or the landslide caused the earthquake. More than likely the collapsing of the porous rock deep within the side of the volcano is what was felt abd detected as the earthquake. If an earthquake in southern California caused the landslide at Mount St Helens I'd say we were on to something.

Why is it every one of these possible catastrophic events are long overdue? This one supposedly erupts every 300,000 years and it last erupted 300,000 years ago or something to that effect. The big one in San Francisco, tsunami's in the Atlantic and Pacific northwest, Yellowstone super volcano just to name a few.

I also can't wait for the people to claim how Eyjafjallajökull caused Katla to erupt (if/when it does). Different magma chambers and different types of magma but the claim is already primed and ready to be abused.

As i said before, I would love it if they could prove a link between an earthquake thousands of kilometers away caused a volcanic activity or eruption. I'm not here to argue, in fact I asked some questions and would have liked some answers. Don't worry about it though, I look it up later.

Have a great day all.

i wish there was a picture update so i can see what this big pimple looks like . that could be a really big threat of chain reactions. scary. better not rock earthqyakes in cali . i live right on that major san andres fault. ball sac. #s gonna hit the fan pretty quickly i feel...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Well, it didn't occur to me to actually post my results. But here it is:

I had thought about it in terms of the radius as a function of volume. In that case r = [ (3V) / (4π) ]^(1/3) , and
dr/dt = [ (1/3) * (3 / 4π) * (dV/dt)] / [ (3V) / (4π)) ^(2/3) ], or 1 / [ (4π) * (3V/4π)^(2/3)]. (May want to double check my calculus, but I'm pretty confident that I got it right the first time.) Because the OP/article indicated that volume increases at a constant rate, I was curious about the rate at which radius would change per second. Using a numerical table indicated the following values given the 1 m^3 input increase in volume per second.

Input (V) Output (dr/dt)
10 m^3 ~ 0.0445 m / s
50 m^3 ~ 0.0280 m / s
100 m^3 ~ 0.0096 m / s
500 m^3 ~ 0.0033 m / s
1K m^3 ~ 0.0021 m / s
100K m^3 ~ 0.0001 m / s

According to my calculations, when the volume is 100K m^3 the radius will have extended from 0 to ~ 29 meters in ~ 28 hours. When the volume is 100 million m^3 the radius will have increased from 0 to ~ 287.9 meters in ~ 3.17 years. When the volume is 100 billion m^3, the timeline is something on the range of 3, 170 years and the radius will have extended out to about 2879 meters or 1.7 miles. Granted none of this reflects the reality of the caldera, but it afforded me an idea about how this thing might fill up and the rate at which the radius would increase. At any rate, it still seems pretty significant to me based on geologic timelines.