PDA

View Full Version : Journey to the Center of the Yellowstone Caldera 2012



Hector
2012-Mar-09, 04:19 PM
This is to gain some input from those in related scientific disciplines about the mysteries of Yellowstone Park Caldera. From what I can piece together, it would seem the end of the Maunder Minimum wakened not only the sun's activity but possibly the supervolcano as well.
Since it's discovery some 200 years after the Maunder Minimum or "little ice age," the caldera had been seen to have geysers. I'm of the opinion that it is not impossible for those leaks to be the earliest stages of fracture, thus eruption and caused by a thaw after such a long deep freeze. It would seem logical that if the area is already hotter than it used to be, yet likely weakened around 1650, if it were subjected to some short season of local deep feeze, it may follow classic physics and contract again, thus fracturing further.

Any thoughts to fail that? If that is possible, could this become a runaway effect? If so, could the aquifers from surrounding states be drained, thrust or even siphoned there resulting in a supersaturation or other event process? My last look at the aquifers from Wyoming and surrounding states, suggests the caldera would act as one large, bubbling, ejecting, hot spring. This could create new tributaries meandering the water eventually to the eastern states and even perhaps raise the level of the Great Lakes. I'm hoping some of you will bring in water tables and aquifers online. They all appear to be interleaved quite a bit. We know a new water body has been discovered on the Western fringe of the Caldera. I want to see if there is any interleave with the underground river in Mexico in the link below:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070305-cave-river.html"
http://news.national...cave-river.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070305-cave-river.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/underground-lakes-river/2190


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html



These are all relevant to the subject of the caldera and underground water sources that could affect it.


The sun's visiable activity may have a link to the Caldera as it "shakes" the Earth's magnetic field.

I've been working to find a way to predict solar flares. The following list is of a number of predictions made for solar flares based around the symmetry of the solar wind and some other experiments I've run. The first 4 I've been accurate to within 24 hours and today we are looking at what appears to be two flares in excess of 1.5% of the disk. I missed the one we just had Tuesday, but it doesn't rule out the next one coming around St. Patrick's Day.
Oct 15, 2011 - made the news
Jan 20 2012 - made the news
feb 2 2012 - smaller but significant
feb 15 2012 - smaller but significant
march 19 2012
april 5 2012
may 5 2012
may 25 2012
july 12 2012
july 27 2012
sep 3 2012
sep 17 2012
oct 27 2012
nov 18 2012
dec 3 2012
dec 17 2012

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_304/512/

Is there a link between the solar wind and volcanism? It appears the supervolcano may be a type that errupts in phases as its own system disrupts from expansion and contraction. It may be a particular effect or phase could begin and continue for hundreds of years. Such a revelation would be good news because we could know a bit what to expect.

IMO 2012 will be nothing like the movie sensationalizes and Yellowstone will not errupt suddenly as was depicted there. The one thing I'm speculating is that a deep freeze in Colorado and Wyoming could be a "next phase" indicator and it could runaway over a period of 10 or 20 years... I hope it would be that progressive.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/under/under.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_volcano

http://news.discovery.com/earth/yellowstone-park-supervolcano-plume-110414.html


(excerpt about the new aquifer and the caldera's mantle plume):
The plume's high conductivity suggests it contains high levels of silicate rocks and perhaps briny water, he said. The observation that the high conductivity plume is larger and angled differently than the one found with seismic imaging suggests that the plume of molten and partially molten rock may be surrounded by additional liquid including briny water...


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/110119-yellowstone-park-supervolcano-eruption-magma-science/


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/08/yellowstone/achenbach-text

(Excerpt)
On August 29, 1870, a 30-year-old Army lieutenant named Gustavus Doane, part of an exploratory expedition in the Yellowstone region in the territory of Wyoming,

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/june05/feature_supervolcano.html


(excerpt about 2002-2003 activity):
Around the same time, the U.S. Geological Survey ...create a stronger framework for monitoring and research. A few years later, in late 2002, a number of geological factors contributed to ramping up public interest in Yellowstone and its volcanic potential.

First, surface waves from the magnitude-7.9 Denali, Alaska, earthquake triggered about 400 small temblors within the park, 3,100 kilometers (about 1,900 miles) distant from the epicenter. Next, Steamboat Geyser, Yellowstone’s tallest and most unpredictable geyser, erupted in March 2003 and again in April and October. A new and vigorously steaming 75-meter (245-foot) line of steam vents erupted within sight of the Norris-Mammoth Road. A trail in the Norris Geyser Basin was closed because of increased steaming and resulting elevated ground temperatures.

The above are excerpts from the articles directly above them. The last is where I'm basing some of my questions concerning deep freeze and its effects on this huge "lid." It may offer more than just a link between the the Su's and Earth's magnetosphere's where volcanoes are concerned, it could reflect on seismology as well, which we already know a link exists to a degree. Recently the subject of magnetic reconnection has come into the pieces of the puzzle. These magnetic portals occur every 8 minutes here on Earth. The CLUSTER Mission has only verified these since 2008.


The Wiki article on "The Little Ice Age," are important because they link, somewhat, sunspot activity, or inactivity, to the planet's climate. How do we come up with some sort of predictability over potential hazards such as the Yellowstone Caldera? Are we all still that primative in our ability to compare evidence that all we can say is "I don't know?"


maunder minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
 
(excerpt):
It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming 

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com/2012/02/volcanoes-not-maunder-minimum-caused.html

My take on all this is just one person's perspective. I'd be very interested in hearing what others have to say about this.

Hector Decimal

Gillianren
2012-Mar-09, 07:26 PM
I don't agree with any of your poll options. My selection is "not enough historical data."

Swift
2012-Mar-09, 07:52 PM
I don't agree with any of your poll options.
That would be my choice.

Gillianren
2012-Mar-09, 08:37 PM
Also, even if the Yellowstone Caldera erupted right now, I don't think it would destroy all life on Earth. Doing that would be extremely difficult.

Jim
2012-Mar-09, 09:03 PM
Yeah, there have been lots of other "ELE"s which haven't managed that. Including the last time Yellowstone erupted.

As for when this might happen, probably shortly after I schedule a family vacation there and just as we arrive.

And I'll still have to pay for the room.

Trebuchet
2012-Mar-09, 09:33 PM
I don't agree with any of those answers. All the timescales quoted are far too short. It might erupt within the next 20 years, but it's highly unlikely. It might erupt in the next 200,000 years. Or not. We just don't know.

I think this is pretty close to being ATM.

tusenfem
2012-Mar-09, 09:37 PM
Like others said, the poll does not have my answer.
Apart from that there are some loose screws in your presentation.



Since it's discovery some 200 years after the Maunder Minimum or "little ice age," the caldera had been seen to have geysers. I'm of the opinion that it is not impossible for those leaks to be the earliest stages of fracture, thus eruption and caused by a thaw after such a long deep freeze. It would seem logical that if the area is already hotter than it used to be, yet likely weakened around 1650, if it were subjected to some short season of local deep feeze, it may follow classic physics and contract again, thus fracturing further.


This does not make any sense. It was discovered 200 years after the end of Maunder, but how do you know that it did not have geyser activity before? Fact is you don't know that, so that is mere speculation. I have no idea how you can state the "already hotter" part and don't understand the "weakening."



The sun's visiable activity may have a link to the Caldera as it "shakes" the Earth's magnetic field.

I've been working to find a way to predict solar flares. The following list is of a number of predictions made for solar flares based around the symmetry of the solar wind and some other experiments I've run. The first 4 I've been accurate to within 24 hours and today we are looking at what appears to be two flares in excess of 1.5% of the disk. I missed the one we just had Tuesday, but it doesn't rule out the next one coming around St. Patrick's Day.


Yes the solar wind has influence on the Earth's magnetic field, but do you have any idea how strong this effect is? You might be greatly overestimating what is happening in this "shaking." For an example of what happens, see e.g. my paper here (open access) (http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2011AnGeo..29.1549V) about how rotations in the solar wind interact with the Earth's magnetosphere. Yellowstone caldera is way too far south to be influenced by such stuff.

Well 24 hours is a looooong time for prediction of solar flares and as we don't know how you do that, we cannot make any judgement on whether it is a good result or not. Though missing the biggest one in 5 years does not give a good impression.



Is there a link between the solar wind and volcanism? It appears the supervolcano may be a type that errupts in phases as its own system disrupts from expansion and contraction. It may be a particular effect or phase could begin and continue for hundreds of years. Such a revelation would be good news because we could know a bit what to expect.


No, there is no link between solar wind and volcanos. And what supervolcano, another one of your assumptions that Yellowstone is a supervolcano.



IMO 2012 will be nothing like the movie sensationalizes and Yellowstone will not errupt suddenly as was depicted there. The one thing I'm speculating is that a deep freeze in Colorado and Wyoming could be a "next phase" indicator and it could runaway over a period of 10 or 20 years... I hope it would be that progressive.


What deep freeze, another ice age?



The last is where I'm basing some of my questions concerning deep freeze and its effects on this huge "lid." It may offer more than just a link between the the Su's and Earth's magnetosphere's where volcanoes are concerned, it could reflect on seismology as well, which we already know a link exists to a degree. Recently the subject of magnetic reconnection has come into the pieces of the puzzle. These magnetic portals occur every 8 minutes here on Earth. The CLUSTER Mission has only verified these since 2008.


Seems more like statements than questions to me.
The 8 minutes has been known for much longer that since 2008, I don't know exactly when the first observations of this reconnection was made, I think in the 1980s by Chris Russell @ UCLA.
However, there is no link whatsover that these flux transfer events (FTEs) have anything to do with or are creating earthquakes.

jlhredshift
2012-Mar-09, 11:01 PM
My choice would be "possibly sometime in the distant future".

When I saw the title I had hopes of some links to relevant peer reviewed papers, like from the USGS, but alas.....

Trebuchet
2012-Mar-10, 12:18 AM
Tusenfem, isn't Yellowstone generally considered to be a supervolcano? Or have I been watching the Discovery Channel too much?

Hector, I'm afraid the fact that only you have voted in your poll should be telling you something.

dgavin
2012-Mar-10, 01:27 AM
This is not a valid Poll in that all the voting options seem to indicate a preduice against the fact that as far as an eruption goes, it could be anywhere from tomorrow, to a few millon years from tomorrow.

It looks like others have covered any objections I might of had so don't have anything else to add to this.

dgavin
2012-Mar-10, 01:30 AM
Tusenfem, isn't Yellowstone generally considered to be a supervolcano? Or have I been watching the Discovery Channel too much?

For every Super Volcanic eruptions it's had, it's had thousands of what might be considered normal eruptions (VEI-1 through VEI-6), so even if it does erupt, the probililities are more for a standard volcanic style event.

DoggerDan
2012-Mar-10, 08:49 AM
None of the above. I think it'll continue to fizzle here and there for many centuries, then cook off some time n the next 100,000 years.

geonuc
2012-Mar-10, 03:53 PM
None of the above. I think it'll continue to fizzle here and there for many centuries, then cook off some time n the next 100,000 years.

That sounds better than any of the poll options.

Hector
2012-Mar-11, 02:59 PM
It seems we can only have 5 poll questions. I admit, this being one of my first posts here, I did a sloppy job of it. I placed a similar thread in another forum and found the links were broken. I'll test them here and see if that's a problem.

The park's caldera is a major concern in much of the public's mind. Some don't think anything will happen and it will eventually go extinct instead of errupting. I truly don't know. I do believe there's a connection between solar flares and seismic activity and, in turn, a connection between seismic and volcanic.

There's a lot of stuff up there to take in. I felt it was better to put a lot of material there to look at instead of not enough. The various areas can always be broken down into smaller specialized threads.

One thing to note: I did not say the geysers were not there prior to Jim Bridger discovering the area in 1823. I said we have no records prior to that other than what the native Americans have seen prior to white man.

Like I said, I have a couple similar threads in other forums. This is so I can get different input from different circles. One has brought up the most of the rock in the area is Rhyolite, fractures have been around for millions of years, the waters feeding the geysers is from 1.5 to 3 miles below the caldera's basin. The deep freeze could, under the longest endurance, run as deep as 4500 feet.

Thanx all of you for the responses. Maybe amid the plethora of initial thoughts and feedback on all that, I can do what I can to piece this puzzle together.

Yes, I'm the only one who voted thus far. As I've speculated, I think it could start a runaway event in less than 20 years. I'll take that perspective and see what we can learn through all this.

Swift
2012-Mar-11, 04:02 PM
The park's caldera is a major concern in much of the public's mind.
Really? I've never had that impression. I suspect the vast majority of the public doesn't even think there is a connection between Yellowstone and volcanoes. If you ask them about a volcano in a National Park they think Hawaii or Mount St. Helen's. Having visited Yellowstone, I had no impression the general public had any such concerns.

Hector
2012-Mar-11, 04:06 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070305-cave-river.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/underground-lakes-river/2190


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html

I can see most of those links are broken. Above are a few to start with. I imagine one of the first areas, as these depict, concerns that like most rocky planets and planetoids (moons) there's a lot more water and ice below the surface than we ever expected.

Hector
2012-Mar-11, 04:12 PM
Really? I've never had that impression. I suspect the vast majority of the public doesn't even think there is a connection between Yellowstone and volcanoes. If you ask them about a volcano in a National Park they think Hawaii or Mount St. Helen's. Having visited Yellowstone, I had no impression the general public had any such concerns.

Some of even the USGS sites mention that there's been a lot of public attention to the park that started after the rash of quakes and then the steam vents popping up between 2002 and 2003. It should be kept in mind that during all this we were expeiencing quite a barage of solar storms those years, plus the magnetic inclination increased it's rate by a factor of about 10... again. The last increase was around the 70's, that also being a factor of about 10 since the early 1900's.

Hector
2012-Mar-11, 04:41 PM
I think I have the links fixed.

Hector
2012-Mar-11, 06:00 PM
Really? I've never had that impression. I suspect the vast majority of the public doesn't even think there is a connection between Yellowstone and volcanoes. If you ask them about a volcano in a National Park they think Hawaii or Mount St. Helen's. Having visited Yellowstone, I had no impression the general public had any such concerns.

Is there any way I can change the poll?

Swift
2012-Mar-11, 07:09 PM
Hector,

A couple of things (please also note the purple font, which means I am speaking as a moderator).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070305-cave-river.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/underground-lakes-river/2190


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html

I can see most of those links are broken. Above are a few to start with. I imagine one of the first areas, as these depict, concerns that like most rocky planets and planetoids (moons) there's a lot more water and ice below the surface than we ever expected.
First, when posting links, it is common practice around here to post either a small quote from the linked website and/or a short summary of what is there. A lot of people don't want to be clicking unknown links. I'm also very unclear what they have to do with the topic of the Yellowstone Caldera

Is there any way I can change the poll?
You can not. I believe moderators can to some extent (like changing text on choices), but at this point even that would be inappropriate. It would make most of the responses from other members look ridiculous, since they would be to text that is no longer there.

Frankly, I don't see the value of a poll for this topic - if you want to discuss it, just discuss it. But if you want a new poll, maybe you should start a new thread.

It should be kept in mind that during all this we were expeiencing quite a barage of solar storms those years, plus the magnetic inclination increased it's rate by a factor of about 10... again.
Quite frankly, you supposition of a connection between volcanoes and solar storms is a very non-mainstream idea. We have very specific rules about such non-mainstream or Against The Mainstream (ATM) ideas. One of them is that you may not advocate such ATM ideas outside of our ATM forum. If you have not done so, I strongly suggest you review our rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32864-**-Rules-For-Posting-To-This-Board-**), most particularly rule 13.

Gillianren
2012-Mar-11, 07:53 PM
I do believe there's a connection between solar flares and seismic activity and, in turn, a connection between seismic and volcanic.

Belief is all well and good. What's important is evidence. What education do you have in geology, seismology, and solar physics?

Hector
2012-Mar-11, 08:01 PM
I've thought about the new thread possibility. As for against the main stream, I likely forgot that. If you think it is better in a different category, I won't feel offended if it was moved, still I quaestion just what main stream would be about the caldera. We know so little about supervolcanoes and I doubt if we could truly discern whether or not this supervolcano errupted like a normal volcano at one time or another unless at some time evidence had been shown that the basin as it is was not in place.

The impression I get is at least one person here was unaware Yellowstone was a supervolcano. As for there being a connection between solar storms and the park, it is difficult to stretch the imagination to interpret the simultaneous flares, seismic and thermal activity at the park being unconnected. I wouldn't have to dig too far to establish mainstream perspectives connecting quakes and the flares and certainly solar flares and weather.

I wouldn't even think it was off the mainstream to attempt predicting flares, considering that NASA actually has some pages associated with SOHO that attempt such predictions. The thought of changing the poll would be more to satisfy the wider spectrum for those who mentioned it in order that they might have something to choose. I really didn't mean to make it seem so biased.

As for the poll, if you would make the changes, please.
q'S 1 & 3 would stay. 2 would read "It will errupt gradually over the next 500 years or never again." 4 would read "It will errupt hundreds of years from now cataclysmically" and 5 would read "I was not aware the park was a volcano."

I'll review the rules again. Being new, that couldn't hurt.

Consider that this is actually targeted at gaining the mainstream response regarding what is known about the entire area. The only thing not main stream is my current opinion. What I've seen in all the similar discussions is that the mainstream idea reduces to "We don't know." My take on it all is that perhaps we know more than we think. It would be tough for someone who just bought 10 acres in Wyoming with a 1/4 million dollar home on it to want to believe the park could react adversely in their lifetime.

I think the thread is in the right forum, but I agree I really botched the poll.

Hector
2012-Mar-11, 08:23 PM
Belief is all well and good. What's important is evidence. What education do you have in geology, seismology, and solar physics?

http://www.pesn.com/2011/03/12/9501786_Japans_Record_Quake_Corresponds_to_Sun_Fla re/

There's some as a quick example. One doen't have to dig far to find these comparisons.

As to your query about my education, BScME 1974 USAFES (then UNiv. of Maryland) and approximately 40 years adutodidactic studies in astrophysics centering on gravity. While doing that I worked as a mechanical engineer in many contracted situations. Now I have my own scientific research facility that vascillates between theory and prototype work. These other areas I'm learning on the fly. If Haiti hadn't occurred followed by a rash of other quakes, I'd probably still be working out a variety of possible connections to vacuum fluctuation and black holes.

I think we should explore some other possibilities that Newtonian physics would suggest. That's really what I hope to achieve here.

Thank you.

Gillianren
2012-Mar-11, 08:25 PM
You know, rashes of quakes happen all the time. When I was in junior high and high school, Los Angeles was hit by an earthquake substantial enough to close the schools pretty much once a year--but that wasn't true before or since. How does that fit in with your theory?

Hector
2012-Mar-11, 08:38 PM
Hector,

A couple of things (please also note the purple font, which means I am speaking as a moderator).

First, when posting links, it is common practice around here to post either a small quote from the linked website and/or a short summary of what is there. A lot of people don't want to be clicking unknown links. I'm also very unclear what they have to do with the topic of the Yellowstone Caldera

You can not. I believe moderators can to some extent (like changing text on choices), but at this point even that would be inappropriate. It would make most of the responses from other members look ridiculous, since they would be to text that is no longer there.

Frankly, I don't see the value of a poll for this topic - if you want to discuss it, just discuss it. But if you want a new poll, maybe you should start a new thread.

Quite frankly, you supposition of a connection between volcanoes and solar storms is a very non-mainstream idea. We have very specific rules about such non-mainstream or Against The Mainstream (ATM) ideas. One of them is that you may not advocate such ATM ideas outside of our ATM forum. If you have not done so, I strongly suggest you review our rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32864-**-Rules-For-Posting-To-This-Board-**), most particularly rule 13.

http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/publish/article-9162515995.php

The above link is to Earth Changes Media

This is a reasonably respectable (non-religious/non-political) example of corroborration concerning the questioning of solar flares and volcanoes.

Hector
2012-Mar-11, 08:50 PM
You know, rashes of quakes happen all the time. When I was in junior high and high school, Los Angeles was hit by an earthquake substantial enough to close the schools pretty much once a year--but that wasn't true before or since. How does that fit in with your theory?

It fits as historic statistics. Are you aware that the graphs of solar activity show steady increase over the past 150 years, while the Earth's magnetic fields (4 of them) have increased their rate of inclination in two 10 fold jumps over the last 100 years? Are you aware that in 2002 and 2003 both solar flare activity was the worst in years and the park was not only having an increase in clusters of "tremblors" while a new string of steam vents were opening in mid-2003?

We rarely have quakes here in Indiana, but the last few years we've had a couple over 3M. Another interesting coincident to all this is in Kokomo we've experienced what appear to be deep harmonic tremors.

The surprising thing recently was last Tuesday CBS warned us that we could lose the power grid and a lot of technology. Maybe they should have told us to put on tin-foiled hats... :D

As of now it's tough to call this a theory... maybe a hypothesis, but certainly a number of observations.

tusenfem
2012-Mar-11, 09:12 PM
http://www.pesn.com/2011/03/12/9501786_Japans_Record_Quake_Corresponds_to_Sun_Fla re/

There's some as a quick example. One doen't have to dig far to find these comparisons.

Wow, you can't get anymore woo than that link.

Swift
2012-Mar-11, 09:25 PM
As for the poll, if you would make the changes, please.
q'S 1 & 3 would stay. 2 would read "It will errupt gradually over the next 500 years or never again." 4 would read "It will errupt hundreds of years from now cataclysmically" and 5 would read "I was not aware the park was a volcano."
No, and I stated why above.

I think the thread is in the right forum, but I agree I really botched the poll.
I got a better idea, this thread is closed.

I considered moving it to ATM, but I'm not even sure which of several of your ideas would be the central point of the ATM thread: your predictions about an eruption in Yellowstone, your ideas about connections between solar activity and volcanoes, or your ideas about earthquakes.

If you want to discuss any of those, start a thread in ATM. And I would suggest you pick one at a time, but that is your decision.

By the way, if you, or anyone else would like to argue why this thread should not be closed, please Report this post (the black triangle with the ! in the lower left corner of the post) and state your reasons. The moderators will consider it.