PDA

View Full Version : Yellowstone Caldera Activity



Pages : [1] 2

dgavin
2008-Dec-31, 08:10 PM
Since Dec 26th, Siesmographs at Yellowstone Park have picked up a Earthquake Swarm event, that is still ongoing.

The event is occuring directly below Yellowstone Lake within the Yellowstone uplift region, about 10km's south of the central most point of the uplift area.

This activity is slowy tapering off, so it appears to be a periodic earthquake swarm event that are associated with regions of volcanic uplift. Similar to the swarm event at The Three Sisters uplift area in 2004.

There has been no increases in Gas emisions or Harmonic Tremors, indicating that this is most likey -NOT- a precursor event to any sort of eruption.

Yellowstone remains at a Normal advisory condition and at an aviation condition of Green.

dgavin
2008-Dec-31, 08:18 PM
Notable earthquake events from the Swarm

MAG DATE LOCAL-TIME LAT LON DEPTH LOCATION
y/m/d h:m:s deg deg km

2.7 2009/01/01 05:51:24 44.548N 110.361W 0.2 60 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.8 2009/01/01 03:13:51 44.527N 110.353W 2.0 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.6 2009/01/01 03:13:00 44.527N 110.356W 0.0 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.4 2009/01/01 03:12:57 44.325N 110.388W 37.0 68 km (42 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.3 2009/01/01 03:12:32 44.535N 110.365W 0.6 60 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.3 2009/01/01 03:06:51 44.529N 110.370W 0.5 60 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.9 2009/01/01 03:02:57 44.530N 110.357W 2.0 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.6 2008/12/31 23:59:39 44.504N 110.340W 0.9 63 km (39 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.2 2008/12/31 22:19:51 44.509N 110.350W 1.7 62 km (39 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.5 2008/12/31 08:05:00 44.514N 110.360W 1.1 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.3 2008/12/31 08:02:11 44.523N 110.361W 4.9 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.3 2008/12/31 04:40:04 44.526N 110.368W 2.2 60 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.0 2008/12/31 04:06:15 44.533N 110.368W 1.2 60 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.9 2008/12/31 04:05:12 44.532N 110.380W 0.3 59 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.1 2008/12/31 03:02:32 44.525N 110.378W 0.7 60 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.3 2008/12/31 02:56:38 44.525N 110.371W 1.8 60 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.1 2008/12/31 02:56:09 44.508N 110.362W 2.1 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.1 2008/12/31 02:45:54 44.511N 110.361W 2.5 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.7 2008/12/31 02:45:34 44.507N 110.364W 2.2 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.1 2008/12/31 02:45:02 44.516N 110.370W 2.3 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.2 2008/12/31 02:37:18 44.512N 110.356W 1.5 62 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
0.5 2008/12/31 02:35:21 44.724N 111.158W 6.7 8 km ( 5 mi) NNW of West Yellowstone, MT
1.4 2008/12/31 02:34:27 44.522N 110.365W 0.1 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.3 2008/12/31 02:33:05 44.500N 110.369W 3.6 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.3 2008/12/31 02:26:32 44.535N 110.365W 0.9 60 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.9 2008/12/31 02:21:28 44.533N 110.380W 0.7 59 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
0.9 2008/12/31 02:18:31 44.523N 110.367W 1.9 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.4 2008/12/31 02:16:01 44.525N 110.373W 2.2 60 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.3 2008/12/31 02:13:59 44.514N 110.370W 1.6 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.6 2008/12/31 02:05:59 44.520N 110.368W 0.5 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.6 2008/12/31 02:02:28 44.525N 110.362W 4.3 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.2 2008/12/31 02:00:19 44.518N 110.366W 1.9 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.5 2008/12/31 01:59:21 44.522N 110.362W 0.5 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.0 2008/12/31 01:58:11 44.527N 110.369W 1.3 60 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.1 2008/12/31 00:27:46 44.535N 110.355W 0.4 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
0.8 2008/12/31 00:22:00 44.531N 110.376W 1.2 60 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
0.1 2008/12/30 23:39:04 44.734N 111.217W 3.4 12 km ( 7 mi) NW of West Yellowstone, MT
1.0 2008/12/30 23:19:28 44.528N 110.378W 1.0 60 km (37 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.5 2008/12/30 23:02:54 44.529N 110.358W 2.0 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.3 2008/12/29 12:14:49 44.521N 110.369W 1.8 60 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.1 2008/12/28 12:55:17 44.511N 110.353W 0.7 62 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.0 2008/12/28 12:32:15 44.511N 110.356W 2.7 62 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.2 2008/12/28 02:23:57 44.511N 110.361W 0.4 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.9 2008/12/27 22:15:56 44.502N 110.366W 0.3 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.3 2008/12/27 15:30:03 44.498N 110.358W 4.3 62 km (39 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.2 2008/12/27 13:26:27 44.505N 110.364W 2.4 61 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.5 2008/12/27 13:17:33 44.488N 110.357W 4.1 62 km (39 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.0 2008/12/27 11:23:07 44.495N 110.364W 2.8 62 km (38 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT

*edit - added newer events 1-1-09*

geonuc
2008-Dec-31, 08:24 PM
I think we have a thread discussing this already. Two, in fact.

geonuc
2008-Dec-31, 08:41 PM
Never mind. I see you announced you were starting this thread over in one of the other ones.

dgavin
2009-Jan-01, 08:29 AM
New information on this. There may have been a -brief- Harmonic Tremor today at Yellowstone.

I am not a professionaly siesmologist, so I could be misstaking the reading, but the webicorder signature seems match Harmonic Tremor signatures i've looked at before.

The following link that should be good for 10 days. The tremor starts just after 1200 hours and ceases about at 2100 hours. Roughly a 9 hour tremor.

I don't know what this means yet. And I'm not goign to even guess at it as I have misread siesmographs a few times before.

http://www.seis.utah.edu/helicorder/heli/yellowstone/Uuss.LKWY_SHZ_US.2008123100.gif

HenrikOlsen
2009-Jan-01, 01:08 PM
Or, as I mentioned in one of the other threads, it might be wind, some of the Yellowstone seismometers are vulnerable to picking up vibrations caused by high winds.
You have to compare to the others in the area to see what's actually going on.

dgavin
2009-Jan-01, 07:51 PM
I took a look at al the other siesmographs, and like with the earth quake swarm reedings, the harmoic like signature is present on two of the other closer siesmographs, but less intence.

Siesmographs further away then these three but still in the region had negligable to no readings at all around the same time.

However, almost 10 Siesmographs lost connectivity around 7 pm during the height of this signature. That usually happens when there is a storm that breaks comm lines or covers the solar panels with snow. All 10 lost connectivity at the same time so i's say either storm damage, or a loss of a comm line.

If it is a Harmonic Tremor, USGS should post an update about to Friday. I'll keep tuned in for that. If not, I'll email a contact at CVO and query him as to the nature of the signature.

It's still looking a bit like a brief Harmonic Tremor signature. I compares it to the Harmonic Signature on Old Faithfuls siesmograph (from is periodic gysering). It's about 5 times the power of the Gysering signature, and less smooth in that there are more variences in it's intensity as you can see in that link.

Over all, unless it was a very very localized storm (which is possible?), i'm leaning more towords a harmonic tremor explaination right now. I don't think a storm would of been quite that localized.

dgavin
2009-Jan-01, 08:25 PM
*eye roll*

The internet rumor mill has started. The latest rumor is that the siemographs that all went offline at 7pm last night, were taken off by USGS on purpose...

*eye roll*
*eye roll*
*head shake, face plant*

I'll at least try to keep the information here accurate and only post outcomes when there is some real data to go off of.

dgavin
2009-Jan-01, 11:46 PM
I did some charting after getting a hold of the the USGS earthquake datasets.

The general trends so far show a few things.

The distribution by location appears fairly concentrated around a specific region. But without any pattern that might indicate longitudinal or latitudinal migration of them.

The distribution of time and depth does indicate a slow trend of decreasing depth of the events over time. However a five day dataset is definitely to small to say if this is any sort of real trend or not.

Please forgive the Spelling error the charts, I didn't notice those until after exporting them to graphics.

geonuc
2009-Jan-02, 11:01 AM
The distribution by location appears fairly concentrated around a specific region. But without any pattern that might indicate longitudinal or latitudinal migration of them.
Longitude/latitude vs time would show any migration.

Nice work, by the way.

Bozola
2009-Jan-02, 02:19 PM
Longitude/latitude vs time would show any migration.

Nice work, by the way.

USGS (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/43.45.-111.-109.php)

geonuc
2009-Jan-02, 02:50 PM
USGS (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/43.45.-111.-109.php)
Thanks, but I was suggesting dgavin could produce another chart, similar to those he's done already.

dgavin
2009-Jan-02, 02:57 PM
Report for this morning.

The Swarm activity is continuing, but at the less frequent rate thats it's shown for the last few days.

*Retraction - This Harmonic appearing series was a Wind Storm*

Orginal Retracted Text : Again -if- (and this is a big if, I am NOT a professional) I'm reading all the siesmographs correctly, there was a series of 3 harmonic tremors starting at 5:30pm MST last night, picked up on the same three stations, the thrid in the series more intense at around 12:20 am this mornign, and being picked up on 6 stations.

I will say this, I have been reading up on harmonic tremors as much as possible, and I think I'me reading the information correctly.
*End Retraction*

What I have found out though in a Gyser active region like this, this sort of activity could be the prelude to the formation of a new gyser, and not eruptive volcanic activity.

I'm still camping on the USGS notices for an update from them.

dgavin
2009-Jan-02, 02:58 PM
Thanks, but I was suggesting dgavin could produce another chart, similar to those he's done already.


I will, when i grab the next dataset!

dgavin
2009-Jan-02, 04:37 PM
USGS has sent out a notice dated on the mornign of the 1st. No mention of the harmonic tremor activity yet.

They did say they were very busy analyzing over 400 EQ events from this swarm. I suspect they are rather busy with that! And they are still saying that they don't have enough information yet to nail down a fault location.

dgavin
2009-Jan-02, 09:12 PM
Retracting part of an earlier post, the Harmonic Tremor appearing reading this morning was from a wind storm. Itilazied the orginal text in post and marked it as a retraction.

I'll be processing a new dataset and charts this evening.

Gillianren
2009-Jan-02, 09:17 PM
Shouldn't they know to, like, cover the seismograph or something?

cjameshuff
2009-Jan-02, 10:12 PM
Shouldn't they know to, like, cover the seismograph or something?

Wind can be pretty rough. Air's about 1.2 kg/m^3. In a 50 kph wind, that's 1.7 metric tons of air bouncing into a 10x10 m square obstacle per second. Depending on the form of the land, the ground itself beneath the seismometers may have been shaking due to gusts of wind...even if that's negligible, a simple cinderblock hut (just as an example, don't know if this is what they actually use) might not be enough to eliminate the effects. Also, I doubt they are all in the most accessible of locations, and it may have been a choice between placing more of them and making them windproof.

dgavin
2009-Jan-02, 11:25 PM
Actually, wind causing the tree's to sway is what adds most of the wind energy to the ground that seismographs then pick up. Brush and small buildings can add a little bit of energy to the ground also. The taller something is, the more sway energy from wind is imparted to the ground.

Trying to cover all the tree's or skyscrapers, would be an interesting technical challenge:)

HenrikOlsen
2009-Jan-03, 01:58 AM
Retracting part of an earlier post, the Harmonic
Tremor appearing reading this morning was from a wind storm.
So I called it correctly (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/83012-yellowstone-caldera-activity-post1399843.html#post1399843)?



Shouldn't they know to, like, cover the seismograph or something?
If the wind shakes nearby trees, the ground the trees grow in shakes and depending on the type of soil that will be picked up by the seismometer. Covering won't help as the ground is actually shaking, just not from seismic activity.

Others are in places where garbage trucks driving by registers as small tremors, but they can recognize those by the time of day they happen.

They do know which of the seismometers are vulnerable to these types of interference and will adjust for them in the published earthquake data since those are the result of combining the measurements from multiple seismometers, even if they can't remove the effect from the raw data.

dgavin
2009-Jan-03, 04:04 AM
So I called it correctly (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/83012-yellowstone-caldera-activity-post1399843.html#post1399843)?

For that second set of 3 harmonics, yes, definitely. I should of been clued in by the one that was Saturated earlier.

The first one I'd say it's 50/50 either way. I Haven't been able to find any historic wind data for that period of time at Yellowstone. Probably just not searching with the right parameters. However, none of them was saturated either.

I have some new earthquake charts done.

The general trends that can be deduced from them are:

A movement northward of the swarm
A decrease in the average depth of the quakes
Decrease of frequency from initial stages
Increase of the ratio of larger magnitude quakes towards lower magnitude ones
A very periodic occurrence of them, coming in spurts with quiet between.
I think there is enough data so far to say that it appears this swarm is most likely due to a new fault zone forming under Yellowstone lake. The periodic nature of these events, hints, that it might be being assisted by heated water or steam.

There is not enough data yet to tell if any steam or hot water might break surface.

geonuc
2009-Jan-03, 10:58 AM
I think there is enough data so far to say that it appears this swarm is most likely due to a new fault zone forming under Yellowstone lake. The periodic nature of these events, hints, that it might be being assisted by heated water or steam.


How significant, do you suppose? By that, I mean would this formation of new faults be consistent with past observed trends, or would it be unusual or unexpected for one reason or another?

Someday, maybe soon, Old Faithful will no longer blow. There's a lot of tourist infrastructure built up around that geyser.

dgavin
2009-Jan-03, 07:43 PM
USGS has released some official news.


This earthquake sequence is the most intense in this area for some years. No damage has been reported within Yellowstone National Park, nor would any be expected from earthquakes of this size. The swarm is in a region of historical earthquake activity and is close to areas of Yellowstone famous hydrothermal activity. Similar earthquake swarms have occurred in the past in Yellowstone without triggering steam explosions or volcanic activity. Nevertheless, there is some potential for hydrothermal explosions and earthquakes may continue or increase in magnitude. There is a much lower potential for related volcanic activity.


Advisory status is remaining at Normal and Aviation Code of Green.

Geonuc, In this case there are not enough observed past trends to tell if something like this has happened before or not. It's likely there was. Anytime you have an uplift region, new fault zones will form due to the stresses on occasion. So I'd say it was consistent.

I wouldn't worry about any geyser ceasing either, that sort of happening would only be because the heat source was cooling off. Earthquakes might cause a geyser to find a new channel, but think it would be rare for a earthquake to actually stop one cold.

Swift
2009-Jan-03, 11:35 PM
Someday, maybe soon, Old Faithful will no longer blow. There's a lot of tourist infrastructure built up around that geyser.
IIRC the various geysers in the park are constantly changing (becoming more or less active), in the 100 years or so that humans have been recording their activity. It is quite likely that Old Faithful will stop someday.

jj_0001
2009-Jan-04, 01:55 AM
IIRC the various geysers in the park are constantly changing (becoming more or less active), in the 100 years or so that humans have been recording their activity. It is quite likely that Old Faithful will stop someday.

Geysers, geologically, are emipheral phenominon.

So "in our lifetime" woudn't be a bad guess. Of course, unless there is "significant rearrangement" the energy is likely to show up somewhere near the old geyser.

geonuc
2009-Jan-04, 11:27 AM
I don't think it would take much to stop Old Faithful. The geyser blows because its chamber refills after venting and because the geometry and structure of the geyser is just so. If that water is prevented from entering the chamber or if the chamber's geometry is altered, no Old Faithful. Maybe now just an ACME steam vent and maybe shifted a hundred meters. The ground in that area of the park has plenty of other outlets for heat energy to escape.

I'm just musing about the geyser - the current earthquake swarm probably won't affect things except right around where the magma is moving/upwelling.

dgavin
2009-Jan-04, 05:01 PM
Well, it's been almost two days and not a peep out of the seismographs. Too soon to say if it's over though.

A short swarm like this, with a definite pattern of decreasing depth and movement in specific directions over days, instead of weeks or months, is an indication of something more fluid then magma moving. In this case most likely super heated water, or steam.

If the swarm does not start back up within a few weeks, then likely it's depressurized enough that it could be over.

jj_0001
2009-Jan-05, 01:03 AM
The ground in that area of the park has plenty of other outlets for heat energy to escape.


Boy oh boy is that for sure :) :) :)



I'm just musing about the geyser - the current earthquake swarm probably won't affect things except right around where the magma is moving/upwelling.

Magma or hot water. Consider, isn't the west thumb a hydrothermal explosion?

Jens
2009-Jan-05, 02:22 AM
Trying to cover all the tree's or skyscrapers, would be an interesting technical challenge:)

Just cut down all the trees, and demolish the skyscrapers. :)

dgavin
2009-Jan-06, 06:08 AM
Two very minor quakes this morning, but nothing to indicate the swarm might be restarting.

Looks like this may be a similar event to the Three Sisters and Mt. Shasta swarms.

It will still need weeks of monitoring to know for sure, but at this point I'll go out on a limb and say it is most likely over with, for the immediate future.

dgavin
2009-Jan-07, 03:12 AM
Interesting minor development, Hebgen Lake, about 70km west and north of Yellowstone Lake, has been having a very low intensity group of quakes ranging from .05 to .5 in magnitude.

Doubtful this will develop into it's own swarm, but it's starting to look like a set of 'sympathetic' low level quakes.

jj_0001
2009-Jan-07, 06:44 AM
Interesting minor development, Hebgen Lake, about 70km west and north of Yellowstone Lake, has been having a very low intensity group of quakes ranging from .05 to .5 in magnitude.

Doubtful this will develop into it's own swarm, but it's starting to look like a set of 'sympathetic' low level quakes.

Hm, where do you find the data for these "under .5" quakes?

dgavin
2009-Jan-07, 03:01 PM
Hm, where do you find the data for these "under .5" quakes?

It's on the USGS, Yellowstone area EQ map.

Stroller
2009-Jan-07, 03:49 PM
Interesting minor development, Hebgen Lake, about 70km west and north of Yellowstone Lake, has been having a very low intensity group of quakes ranging from .05 to .5 in magnitude.

Doubtful this will develop into it's own swarm, but it's starting to look like a set of 'sympathetic' low level quakes.

Hebgen was the site of the '59 quake which killed 28 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Yellowstone_earthquake

I suppose it's not too surprising that the area is showing signs of activity at the moment, the stresses on the crust will be at a maximum on the 11th, when the moon is at closest perigee this year within 16 hours of being full, plus earth is only a few degrees past perihelion. Additionally, the Moon is near it's highest declination this cycle, taking it almost as close as it gets to being overhead at Yellowstone.

dgavin
2009-Jan-07, 08:03 PM
Hebgen was the site of the '59 quake which killed 28 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Yellowstone_earthquake

I suppose it's not too surprising that the area is showing signs of activity at the moment, the stresses on the crust will be at a maximum on the 11th, when the moon is at closest perigee this year within 16 hours of being full, plus earth is only a few degrees past perihelion. Additionally, the Moon is near it's highest declination this cycle, taking it almost as close as it gets to being overhead at Yellowstone.

Nice information on the Hebgen historic quake.

As to the Moon's influance on Volcanic regions, that really should be an ATM (Against the Mainstream) Topic and not a General Science topic.

It's been covered before as a topic on these forums.

Stroller
2009-Jan-07, 08:37 PM
Whoops, my bad.

I thought it was quite well known after the big tsunami a few years ago that there are lots of instances of quakes and volcanos at new and full moon when they coincide with perigee. I don't know of a rigorous statistical analysis though so I'll stop there. :o)

jlhredshift
2009-Jan-08, 01:28 AM
Whoops, my bad.

I thought it was quite well known after the big tsunami a few years ago that there are lots of instances of quakes and volcanos at new and full moon when they coincide with perigee. I don't know of a rigorous statistical analysis though so I'll stop there. :o)

And I was going to ask for one hoping that there was one showing either a correlation or anti-correlation. Shucks!

dgavin
2009-Jan-08, 02:32 AM
Whoops, my bad.

I thought it was quite well known after the big tsunami a few years ago that there are lots of instances of quakes and volcanos at new and full moon when they coincide with perigee. I don't know of a rigorous statistical analysis though so I'll stop there. :o)

It's been acknowleged by some geologists that the moon has a minimal influance on earthquakes and volcanoes, but if I remember the statitics correctly, there was only a .01% increase in activity due to the moons influance based on it's position.

Gigabyte
2009-Jan-08, 03:48 AM
As to the Moon's influence on Volcanic regions, that really should be an ATM (Against the Mainstream) Topic and not a General Science topic.

It's been covered before as a topic on these forums.

Got a link?

dgavin
2009-Jan-08, 05:51 AM
Got a link?

Sure do,

Here, http://www.bautforum.com/small-media-large/45499-full-moon-cause-mayon-erupt.html

And here, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/08/09/mooning-a-volcano/

jj_0001
2009-Jan-08, 07:37 AM
It's on the USGS, Yellowstone area EQ map.

Hunh?

I don't see anything below 1 on the map. Is there some option I don'tknow about, or are you reading the "list all quakes" list?

The nearest I see to Hegben is south of West Yellowstone, hardly in the Hegben fault area.

Stroller
2009-Jan-08, 08:11 AM
Please don't throw me to the lions in ATM this is just for info and I'm not making any claims but I just looked up Mayon for interest.

Biggest erruption in last 400 years was Feb 1st 1812:
Perigee was Feb 2 12:36 at 363414 km 2 days 6 hours before full moon.

Longest erruption in last 400 years started Jun 23 1897. It lasted 7 days.
Apogee was Jun 25 22:21 at 405625 km 4 days 4 hours before new moon

On 10 August 2008 Phivolcs issued the following news statement:
At 9:12 A.M. today, Mayon Volcano manifested mild ash explosion that reached an approximate height of 200 m
Apogee was on the same day Aug 10 20:19 at 404556 km but nearly a full 6 days before full moon.

geonuc
2009-Jan-08, 10:17 AM
Hunh?

I don't see anything below 1 on the map. Is there some option I don'tknow about, or are you reading the "list all quakes" list?

This is the EQ map I get to from USGS (actually Univ of Utah). The map itself doesn't show <1, but the listing does.

http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.html

I don't see a map with the smaller quakes on it.

dgavin
2009-Jan-08, 10:23 AM
Yes, but again 13 instances of 47 that occur roughly close to a full moon +- 6 days, is close to 1/2 of a lunar cycle, so there really isn't a correlation to be made here.

Again, there is some very minimal influance, moon tides being one of many items that trigger the release of built up presure does happen, but you own data there could be shown to also match coincidence.

dgavin
2009-Jan-08, 10:26 AM
Hunh?

I don't see anything below 1 on the map. Is there some option I don'tknow about, or are you reading the "list all quakes" list?

The nearest I see to Hegben is south of West Yellowstone, hardly in the Hegben fault area.

Try here, there are still about 3/4 of them being shown on this one.

http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.html

geonuc
2009-Jan-08, 11:41 AM
Try here, there are still about 3/4 of them being shown on this one.

http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.html
That's the one I linked to above. It doesn't show the small quakes on the map.

Stroller
2009-Jan-08, 11:51 AM
Yes, but again 13 instances of 47 that occur roughly close to a full moon +- 6 days, is close to 1/2 of a lunar cycle, so there really isn't a correlation to be made here.

Again, there is some very minimal influance, moon tides being one of many items that trigger the release of built up presure does happen, but you own data there could be shown to also match coincidence.

Sure, and I'm not making any claims. I think the correlation tightens up quite a bit when you look at occurrences which are near full/new moon, and perigee/apogee though. This is much less frequent, and is often found to occur very near major events. Still of very little use in prediction though, so falls into the class of "gee, look at that, but so what" phenomena I guess.

Perhaps if a volcano was already bubbling, and new moon was due at perigee in mid december, you might choose another time to go on a crater watch. :)

dgavin
2009-Jan-08, 08:28 PM
That's the one I linked to above. It doesn't show the small quakes on the map.

Theyare very tiny, three or four of them of them are just a little east of the C shape in Hebgen lake.

On the Ledgend you can see the size of 1.0 boxes or larger, the ones next to Hebgen lake are about 3 pixels in size, so are a bit difficult to see.

geonuc
2009-Jan-08, 10:22 PM
Oh, yeah, there they are. Thanks. I guess I was paying too much attention to the legend.

dgavin
2009-Jan-11, 09:28 PM
There was a second, smaller swarm event on Friday. However the with EQ Maps site appears to be having issues right now. It's close to the same area as the first swarm is about all i can tell at this point.

dgavin
2009-Jan-15, 08:00 PM
This smaller swarm was located just east and a little north, in a known fault zone location.

There has also been an even smaller swarm event on the west side of the lake.

Nothing to worry over, all this really means is the main swarm may have rearranged the stresses in the caldera a bit and it appears some of the falut zone areas around it are settling out the stresses in thier locations.

At this point they do seem to be related, but not due to any magma intrusions. It's looking more and more like Yellowstone just had a case of 'gas' and it's stomac is just quietly rumbling as it settles down.

There are still no indications of any changes in hydrothermal activity or in CO2/SO2 emissions. No indications of changes in chemical compositions of the geyers either.

It's still too soon to tell if the main event is truely done.

jj_0001
2009-Jan-15, 08:59 PM
I keep waiting for a "burp" in the form of a steam explosion. It really looks like a bunch of hot water decided to push its way up.

But we shall see. It's Yellowstone. It could burp, it could do nothing. We could maybe just barely wake up tomorrow morning and find the lake down 10' ... Although that last might worry me :)

flynjack1
2009-Jan-20, 05:07 AM
I'll say this about Yellowstone seismology, it is a very active area. I actually assisted in some of the work there by Dr. Smith more than 20 years ago. His work there has been something I have followed every since. One has to be very careful attaching significance to any particular quake or even a small swarm, but his statements in regards to the December swarm were the strongest he has used for awhile. I will continue to follow with interest the events there.

Any statisticians: what would be the probability of being alive when Yellowstone erupts be if it were assumed that it has a 50 percent chance of erupting in the next 50,000 years and the average life span being 80 years?

astromark
2009-Jan-20, 07:22 AM
Its good to be informed. Its also good to be aware of what 'might' or 'could' happen. BUT. its foolish paranoia to worry about what you can do nothing about.
With some interest in this topic as that paranoia haunts me. I live in New Zealand...:)
More years than I care to say, Ago... I too wondered at the possible effects of lunar tidal actions triggering seismic events... but no... and I looked for over a whole year. Still no. Proof enough that just this month the moon was as close to planet Earth as it gets and on the full moon and not a major event ( yes there were some...) just the usual from across the globe ...
It would be equally foolish to ignore the rumbling deep beneath Yellowstone.
I want it both ways... I would like to witness the power of this Earths fury... I enjoy the high standard of living we have become accustomed to. Just because humanity has inhabited a area or location. Does not rule a massive eruption out.

half-jack
2009-Jan-21, 08:47 PM
Maybe you can help me understand something else Gavin...

Lately there's been discussion that the steam from some of the geysers is looking more dark, like it could possibly be producing smoke instead of steam at times. (Which is turning into, if it's smoke showing at time, then that could be a sign of a possible eruption, etc.) Here's some examples:

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk255/bobandbobek/Old_Faithful_Jan_09_2009_Cropped.jpg

http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/uploads/ats64039_oldfaith2_jan_21.jpg

If you look in the second one, the front geyser has the dark colored cloud (what's being thought to be as smoke) while there is one in the background that's very white (which is what is said to be the steam.)

Thanks in advance!

cjameshuff
2009-Jan-21, 09:13 PM
Lately there's been discussion that the steam from some of the geysers is looking more dark, like it could possibly be producing smoke instead of steam at times. (Which is turning into, if it's smoke showing at time, then that could be a sign of a possible eruption, etc.) Here's some examples:

Can't say for certain, but those look a lot like they're just in their own shadow, or in the shadow of a cloud or other plume of steam.

half-jack
2009-Jan-21, 09:25 PM
Actually James, I was talking in some other threads and they said exactly what you said. That you can't really tell because there are so many different factors that can change it's brightness such as it being in it's own shadow, contents of the actual steam, etc. :) Thanks for your input! :)

flynjack1
2009-Jan-21, 09:25 PM
I agree it appears to be a lighting difference between the two. If it were volcanic gasses venting the buffalo might have been affected too.

Stroller
2009-Jan-21, 11:17 PM
I too wondered at the possible effects of lunar tidal actions triggering seismic events... but no... and I looked for over a whole year. Still no. Proof enough that just this month the moon was as close to planet Earth as it gets and on the full moon and not a major event

The max forces are at a new moon perigee, when the moon is between earth and sun. That's coming in July.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jan-21, 11:21 PM
Can "harmonic tremors" be used to predict an eruption of a volcano like the Yellowstone Caldera? Or is that tech only valid for stratovolcanoes?

(Sorry if this has already been asked.)

half-jack
2009-Jan-21, 11:57 PM
I was actually interested in the moon's gravitation pull causing events to happen as well. For the most part, what I've read is No. Just cause, even though there's one coming up in July, we've had several others and nothing to that effect. I dunno.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jan-22, 12:07 AM
I was actually interested in the moon's gravitation pull causing events to happen as well. For the most part, what I've read is No. Just cause, even though there's one coming up in July, we've had several others and nothing to that effect. I dunno.

Don't know if this is helpful, but I read somewhere that not only does the Moon create tides in the ocean, but also that the crust can be "pulled" about a foot at times.

Stroller
2009-Jan-22, 12:14 AM
I was actually interested in the moon's gravitation pull causing events to happen as well. For the most part, what I've read is No. Just cause, even though there's one coming up in July, we've had several others and nothing to that effect. I dunno.
Think of it as repeatedly bending a metal strip. For many times, nothing happens, then...

2004 Dec 27 19:16 apogee 406487 km + Full+1d 4h


The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was an undersea earthquake that occurred at 00:58:53 UTC on December 26, 2004, with an epicentre off the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. The earthquake was caused by subduction and triggered a series of devastating tsunami along the coasts of most landmasses bordering the Indian Ocean, killing more than 225,000 people in eleven countries, and inundating coastal communities with waves up to 30 meters (100 feet) high. It was one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand were hardest hit.

flynjack1
2009-Jan-22, 01:27 AM
When Yellowstone goes there will be plenty of activity leading up to it. If all the other indicators were there and the Moon was moving to apogee or perigee then maybe it could be the straw? What will be interesting right now is the measurements of uplift in the dome. As far as harmonics go I would think that it would apply to Yellowstone as well since I believe harmonic tremors are largely caused by moving magma and there is plenty of that under Yellowstone.

half-jack
2009-Jan-24, 07:57 AM
Looks like YS is getting active again. -sigh-

http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.html

So much for finally relaxing. Just when I thought things were ok enough to go about my business. lol

Gillianren
2009-Jan-24, 09:14 AM
May I suggest that you don't need to post essentially the same thing in both threads? I think we've got all the same people.

half-jack
2009-Jan-24, 09:37 AM
Yeah, sorry about that. Won't happen again...

flynjack1
2009-Jan-24, 06:01 PM
Looks like YS is getting active again. -sigh-

http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.html

So much for finally relaxing. Just when I thought things were ok enough to go about my business. lol

As I said before small tremors are present in Yellowstone all the time. It is only when they concentrate or get to more significant size that it is concerning. You will note if you scroll down on the link you provided that the largest of these tremors was 1.6. You wouldn't notice that if you were standing on top of it when it registered. By all means dont let that dissuade you from keeping tabs on things though.

dgavin
2009-Jan-27, 02:32 AM
Well, still no official updates from USGS on this. Usualy they are weekly, but nothing since the 9th.

There have been a few micro-swarms, one in the same location, and two in other regions. Over all it looks like it's settled down for now.

I'm hoping that the delay in updates is because they are processing the 400+ EQ events into a tomographical image of the area.

flynjack1
2009-Jan-27, 02:51 AM
Well, still no official updates from USGS on this. Usualy they are weekly, but nothing since the 9th.


During periods of inactivity the official Yellowstone Volcano Observatory web site normally only post monthly activity reports. When they post updates its because something interesting is happening at the time to warrant it. keep watching for signs of uplift or shrinking of the caldera dome, there should have been measurements made and some indication of what is happening underneath can be inferred from these measurements.

flynjack1
2009-Jan-27, 09:00 PM
Just a quick link for those that may be interested this link is for earthquakes worldwide greater than 2.5. Today there was a 2.8 in Yellowstone, whether a swarm will follow is to seen.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.html

Grashtel
2009-Jan-28, 09:29 PM
Can "harmonic tremors" be used to predict an eruption of a volcano like the Yellowstone Caldera? Or is that tech only valid for stratovolcanoes?

(Sorry if this has already been asked.)
Good question, I suspect that we would need to see a few examples of Yellowstone type eruptions to be able to answer with it any certainty.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jan-28, 11:06 PM
Good question, I suspect that we would need to see a few examples of Yellowstone type eruptions to be able to answer with it any certainty.

Thanks Grashtel. I see one problem with seeing a Yellowstone eruption: being around afterwards. :)

I do find volcanology fascinating - if I could ever have another career, that would be it.

dgavin
2009-Jan-29, 01:28 AM
Good question, I suspect that we would need to see a few examples of Yellowstone type eruptions to be able to answer with it any certainty.

Yes, Hot Spot volcanoes and Caldera's also have Harmonic Tremors. Harmonic Tremors are a function of Magma, heated water, steam, or other fluids/gasses moving through a fissure or weak spot. The thicker the substance, the longer and more intense the tremors are.

So tremors due to magma are more intense and longer episodic duration due to it's thick viscosity.

And yes, Old Faithful geyser erupting does show up as a very weak and short duration harmonic tremor on it's seismograph.

I have -not- studied this, but I suspect there is some way to differentiate them from seismological data. Or at-least to make a determination as to the viscosity of the substance moving that caused the tremors.

dgavin
2009-Feb-04, 09:04 PM
Update from USGS: (Excerpt taken from full report)


http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/
Seismicity Summary: Beginning Dec 26, 2008, the second largest earthquake swarm of Yellowstone's recorded seismic history occurred beneath the north end of Yellowstone Lake. The swarm continued into Jan. 2009, but subsided rather quickly in activity on January 5. The Lake swarm consisted of 813 well-located earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from -0.8 to 3.9. This sequence contained 19 earthquakes of M>3.0 as well as 141 events of 2<M<2.9. Several of the M>3 swarm events were felt throughout Yellowstone National Park and surrounding area.

In Jan. 9 to Jan 12, a secondary swarm of 35 earthquakes occurred near the northeast edge of the Yellowstone caldera, about 10 miles (16 km) NNE of the north end of the Yellowstone Lake swarm. This sequence included events with magnitudes of 0.4 to 3.3.

These and all other Yellowstone GPS data are being analyzed for unusual properties that may be associated with the Yellowstone Lake swarm.


Well the swarm is officialy done. It will be intresting to see what the GPS data indicates over the next months as it's compiled.

dgavin
2009-May-26, 07:27 AM
No information yet on GPS readings from the swarm.

However another small swarm occurred on the 25th in another non fault zone region of the caldera. This is just a few kilometers North of the main Geyser area so it it likely a hydrothermally related event. Interesting none the less.

2.7 2009/05/25 04:55:00 44.601N 110.811W 0.8 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.4 2009/05/25 04:53:52 44.607N 110.812W 0.8 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.9 2009/05/25 04:41:42 44.587N 110.809W 5.1 25 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.9 2009/05/25 04:39:52 44.580N 110.806W 3.2 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.1 2009/05/25 04:38:52 44.591N 110.818W 7.4 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.6 2009/05/25 04:36:45 44.596N 110.807W 3.9 25 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.9 2009/05/25 04:28:37 44.597N 110.831W 5.9 23 km (14 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.6 2009/05/25 04:05:09 44.589N 110.873W 1.2 20 km (13 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.5 2009/05/25 03:38:35 44.596N 110.833W 0.6 23 km (14 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT

PraedSt
2009-May-26, 08:19 AM
Sorry, got a few questions:

What's a swarm by the way? A series of mini-earthquakes?
Are they common/uncommon?
Regarding future doom, are swarms a good sign? Or a bad sign?

geonuc
2009-May-26, 11:17 AM
Sorry, got a few questions:

What's a swarm by the way? A series of mini-earthquakes?
Are they common/uncommon?
Regarding future doom, are swarms a good sign? Or a bad sign?
Taking your questions in order:

A bunch of earthquakes in one area.
Usually, although they can be big ones, too.
Common in volcanic and seismic zones.
No. They sometimes presage large eruptions.
Yes. They sometimes presage large eruptions.

PraedSt
2009-May-26, 12:08 PM
No. They sometimes presage large eruptions.
Yes. They sometimes presage large eruptions.
:)
Thanks!

jlhredshift
2009-May-26, 01:22 PM
:)
Thanks!

Well, but the history of eruptions at the Yellowstone hot spot is that large is very large, and therefore, very BAD!

danscope
2009-May-26, 06:37 PM
Hi, Thank you for the updates and your informed view of Yellowstone.
It is most appreciated.
Best regards,
Dan

dgavin
2009-May-27, 01:19 AM
Ok Updated list on the mini swarm, 30 of them are located in the same region just a few KM north of the main geyser area. 5 of the events are a smaller sequence due east of the main geyser at the edge of the Caldera region.

This is not unusual activity, in that sometimes a larger swarm will be followed by a smaller swarm in another location. While I definitely do not think this is any signal of impending doom, the location of the January mega-swarm and these two swarms -seems- to coincide with and arc that is a close match to the estimated edges of the magma pool under the caldera. Starting from Yellowstone lake area (Jan's swarm) and moving north westward to the 30 swarm area, then following the edge line SW to the caldera edge of the 5 event swarm (yesterdays swarms).

I'm placing my bets now on that this is likely indicative or either continued uplift activity from the magma pool, or the beginnings of deflation activity due to a magma pool size decrease. The location of the three swarms now just seems too coincidental to all be simple hydrothermal activity, and more likely due to uplift or deflation activity.

This is not odd behavior though, in that some volcanic regions typically flip-flop between periods of uplift and then deflation. So again, you don;t need to be stocking your fallout shelters.

Can't totally rule out hydrothermal activity though. It's just beginning to look less likely of an explanation.

0.6 2009/05/25 13:23:06 44.595N 110.825W 6.5 23 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
0.9 2009/05/25 11:40:09 44.617N 110.799W 7.4 25 km (15 mi) E of West Yellowstone, MT
1.4 2009/05/25 08:14:33 44.576N 110.811W 6.3 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.0 2009/05/25 07:53:54 44.590N 110.794W 8.2 26 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
0.6 2009/05/25 07:12:20 44.610N 110.812W 10.1 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.5 2009/05/25 07:08:52 44.586N 110.828W 7.0 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.6 2009/05/25 06:30:10 44.575N 110.810W 5.8 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
0.5 2009/05/25 06:28:55 44.589N 110.789W 8.9 26 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.1 2009/05/25 06:15:37 44.593N 110.787W 8.9 26 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
0.5 2009/05/25 06:14:13 44.617N 110.797W 6.9 25 km (15 mi) E of West Yellowstone, MT
0.9 2009/05/25 06:09:40 44.600N 110.801W 8.4 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.1 2009/05/25 06:09:08 44.594N 110.805W 8.5 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.3 2009/05/25 05:29:43 44.598N 110.798W 8.6 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.5 2009/05/25 05:28:34 44.596N 110.822W 7.7 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.1 2009/05/25 05:24:58 44.614N 110.824W 7.6 23 km (14 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.0 2009/05/25 05:08:13 44.589N 110.805W 8.9 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.2 2009/05/25 05:06:14 44.615N 110.803W 7.5 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.6 2009/05/25 05:03:56 44.588N 110.793W 9.1 26 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.3 2009/05/25 05:02:03 44.583N 110.788W 7.4 27 km (17 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.5 2009/05/25 04:57:39 44.591N 110.804W 8.1 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.6 2009/05/25 04:56:01 44.592N 110.794W 8.1 26 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.6 2009/05/25 04:54:59 44.581N 110.808W 7.5 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.3 2009/05/25 04:53:52 44.582N 110.798W 7.6 26 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.3 2009/05/25 04:51:00 44.597N 110.815W 2.5 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.4 2009/05/25 04:49:23 44.580N 110.817W 6.2 25 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.9 2009/05/25 04:41:42 44.587N 110.809W 5.1 25 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.9 2009/05/25 04:39:52 44.580N 110.806W 3.2 25 km (16 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.1 2009/05/25 04:38:52 44.591N 110.818W 7.4 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.6 2009/05/25 04:36:45 44.596N 110.807W 3.9 25 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.9 2009/05/25 04:28:37 44.597N 110.831W 5.9 23 km (14 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.6 2009/05/25 04:05:09 44.589N 110.873W 1.2 20 km (13 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.5 2009/05/25 03:38:35 44.596N 110.833W 0.6 23 km (14 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.4 2009/05/25 03:21:57 44.616N 110.805W 6.7 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT
1.4 2009/05/25 03:20:58 44.614N 110.815W 5.8 24 km (15 mi) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT

beskeptical
2009-May-28, 09:09 PM
The monthly summary is due June 1st. Uplift was continuing slowly according to the May 1st update. (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/activity/)

Recent ups and downs of the Yellowstone Caldera (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2007/upsanddowns.php) is a good background piece on what it all means. It's from 2007.

The caldera is alive. It breathes.

jj_0001
2009-May-29, 11:00 AM
Ok Updated list on the mini swarm, 30 of them are located in the same region just a few KM north of the main geyser area. 5 of the events are a smaller sequence due east of the main geyser at the edge of the Caldera region.

That's pretty much centered on Fountain Flats drive, I just noticed, and there is a (*&(*&load of hydrothermal activity there, including "Great Fountain" geyser and a whole lot of fairly hot little features. Last year when I was there one was trying to eat the roadway.

rommel543
2009-May-29, 04:32 PM
I have the seismic activity for Yellowstone bookmarked and I check about once a week. There are swarms occurring a couple times a year. Although seeing them makes me raise my eyebrows I don't get overly worried about them.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2009/09swarm.php

It is possible that the swarm has ended, although a return of activity may occur as previous Yellowstone swarms of this size have lasted for tens of days to many weeks. Swarms are common at Yellowstone.

On thing that I have always wondered though about the Yellowstone caldera is that we are looking at the location of the last eruption. If we look at historical data, the caldera is moving north east every time in blows. Should we be more worried about an eruption occurring closer to Billings, Mt than the current location?

dgavin
2009-May-29, 07:16 PM
The Hot spot typically only moves at about a rate of 25km per 1 my in relation to the surface. The Magma Pool's movement is actually sporatic, typically being stationary for 2 to 5 S.V. eruptions before the hotspot forms a new pool at a different location near by.

BigDon
2009-May-30, 06:41 PM
The monthly summary is due June 1st. Uplift was continuing slowly according to the May 1st update. (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/activity/)

Recent ups and downs of the Yellowstone Caldera (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2007/upsanddowns.php) is a good background piece on what it all means. It's from 2007.

The caldera is alive. It breathes.

The breathing doesn't bother me. It's the pontential for belching, burping and projectile vomiting that have me concerned. :)

beskeptical
2009-May-31, 12:48 AM
We have similar crustal breathing here in the US Northwest but the underlying cause differs. Here it is crustal plate pressure rather than (an) underlying magma chamber(s). If the Olympic Peninsula fails to exhale, it could mean the big one is about to arrive.

Periodic Slow Earthquakes from the Cascadia Subduction Zone (http://www.geodesy.cwu.edu/pubs/p_37/science.pdf)

robross
2009-May-31, 03:55 AM
I've always wanted to know if there was anything we could do to mitigate the super-eruption that we know will occur in this area at some point.

Can we drill to relive pressure? Underground nukes?

Just curious.


Rob

Bearded One
2009-May-31, 04:47 AM
I've always wanted to know if there was anything we could do to mitigate the super-eruption that we know will occur in this area at some point.

Can we drill to relive pressure? Underground nukes?We don't know for sure that one will occur.

If one is due to occur I don't see that there's much we can do about it except evacuate. The magma chamber is over 40 miles across and the energy involved is incredible. Setting off a nuke would probably be a bad idea, it might even trigger the eruption. :eek:

Engineering on that scale is just not an option right now. Best bet is to just hope the continental plates will shift enough to move the chamber below the danger line.

dgavin
2009-May-31, 05:58 PM
Drilling really isn't really and option, and there are a few reason why it would be a bad idea in regards to volcano's.

1. Maximum drill depth has been 2km, most magma pockets are deeper then that. At 2km depth temperatures of the ground reached 350f and cause drill head lubrications to fail.

2. Drilling in a hydrothermally active area like Yellowstone might open up a strait shot for pressurized water/steam to out-gas, which could potentially alter other geysers in the area.

3. Assuming the magma pocket could be reached by drilling, such a open vent would allow the magma to reach the surface without resistance. This could potentially lead to the formation of a flood basalt flow. And it might be one that could not seal itself. Given enough time such a vent could significantly alter the landscape for km's around. It might also allow for the main magma chamber to depressurize enough to allow a new influx of even hotter magma from the hot spot to fill the chamber, which would then also flow out the vent. Depending on the circumstances, dilling could be precipitating a flood basalt flow the likes of which haven't been seen for 17mil years when it first formed. The original flood basalts of the Yellowstone/Newberry hot-spot covered all of eastern Oregon, western Idaho, flowed into Nevada, and Arizona, and quite a bit of eastern Washington as well. Additionally that flood basalt flow traveled down the Columbia gorge all the way to the ocean. A repeat of that type of event would impact quite a few significant areas and cities.

Drilling is not a good idea...

dgavin
2009-May-31, 06:16 PM
Incase you are intrested, here is a writeup on the original CRB/Yellowstone Hotspot break out, and the areas it impacted. Known as the Great Eliptical Basin (http://www.mantleplumes.org/CRBEllipse.html).

beskeptical
2009-Jun-01, 10:18 AM
We don't know for sure that one will occur. I think we can say with certainty that another eruption will occur over the mantle plume eventually. It would seem to be the default position. You'd need some evidence to draw the conclusion we don't know for sure another eruption will occur. It's like saying we don't know for sure it is ever going to rain again.



Engineering on that scale is just not an option right now. Best bet is to just hope the continental plates will shift enough to move the chamber below the danger line.I don't understand the geologic principle you are describing here. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by danger line? You do know this is a mid plate caldera, right?

BigDon
2009-Jun-01, 02:54 PM
Robross,

just to back up what Bearded One and Mr. Gavin said, you don't what this to happen:

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

with lava instead of mud. Hell, even with mud you don't want this to happen.


(Reading that article in wiki I see the weasils are out in force on that incident. With no mention at all that it was an illegal drilling operation to begin with.)

Eoanthropus Dawsoni
2009-Jun-01, 05:02 PM
1. Maximum drill depth has been 2km, most magma pockets are deeper then that. At 2km depth temperatures of the ground reached 350f and cause drill head lubrications to fail.



I think it's around 12km.

Squink
2009-Jun-01, 10:39 PM
3. Assuming the magma pocket could be reached by drilling, ...Drillers break into magma chamber (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7780873.stm)
Drillers looking for geothermal energy in Hawaii have inadvertently put a well right into a magma chamber.

Molten rock pushed back up the borehole several metres before solidifying, making it perfectly safe to study.

Magma specialist Bruce Marsh says it will allow scientists to observe directly how granites are made.

"This is unprecedented; this is the first time a magma has been found in its natural habitat," the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, professor told BBC News.

Geothermal maps, US:
Temperature at 6 kilometers depth (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html)
Much more data:
http://smu.edu/geothermal/2004NAMap/2004NAmap.htm

Bearded One
2009-Jun-01, 10:40 PM
I think we can say with certainty that another eruption will occur over the mantle plume eventually. It would seem to be the default position. You'd need some evidence to draw the conclusion we don't know for sure another eruption will occur. It's like saying we don't know for sure it is ever going to rain again.I'm referring specifically to a super volcanic eruption. Eruptions of a smaller scale will certainly occur.


I don't understand the geologic principle you are describing here. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by danger line? You do know this is a mid plate caldera, right?I'm going from memory here but I believe that the source of this activity is below the plate itself, or at least is assumed to be. Something deeper down is punching holes through the plate above similar to the situation with Hawaii, which is also a mid plate fault. A thicker section of the plate is slowly moving over the area and that may be enough to effectively cap the deeper anomaly enough to prevent super volcanic eruptions. The "danger line" I refer to is basically the thickness of the plate above the anomaly.

Perhaps thinking on this has changed and the source is not considered to be deep and thus can move with the plate?

From what I've gathered from geologic reports it's not 100% certain that another super volcanic eruption will occur. Three points do not a trend make. My gut feeling is that it's highly probable that another will occur, but of lesser magnitude than the previous ones. Still, even a small super volcano is serious business for the whole world.

Since we have never witnessed such an eruption we can only speculate what the signs of an impending eruption will be. Yellowstone is a hot area and it's been heaving and spouting for all recorded history and long before. The recent rise in surface elevation is concerning, but we simply don't know if it's significant. We could still be 200 million years from the next eruption, if one occurs at all. There's also a chance that it has already begun and you will never get to see this post. :(

Bearded One
2009-Jun-01, 10:44 PM
Drillers break into magma chamber Link didn't work for me. :( (Scratch that, it works now. Computers!)


Molten rock pushed back up the borehole several metres before solidifying, making it perfectly safe to study.I hope they were wearing their brown pants that day! :eek:

dgavin
2009-Jun-02, 12:11 AM
Drillers break into magma chamber (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7780873.stm)

Geothermal maps, US:
Temperature at 6 kilometers depth (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html)
Much more data:
http://smu.edu/geothermal/2004NAMap/2004NAmap.htm

Nice find, I haven't heard of that, or the other incident.

However I would like to point out they were using a drilling rig that was specifically equiped for bulk cooling of the drilling aparatus, as it was designed to penetrate extreamly hot Geothermal regions.

They were able to use the cooling system (I assume HP water injection) to cool off the magma in the bore hole after about 5-10meters of travel.

If you were drilling to specifically to allow a magma system to outgas, you wouldn't be fireing off the cooling system to solidify the magma. In which case you would likely wind up with slow, but steady lava flow at the surface, that would likely widen over time to become a full balsalt flow outbreak.

Bearded One
2009-Jun-02, 12:23 AM
If you were drilling to specifically to allow a magma system to outgas, you wouldn't be fireing off the cooling system to solidify the magma. In which case you would likely wind up with slow, but steady lava flow at the surface, that would likely widen over time to become a full balsalt flow outbreak.That might work in Hawaii, but I don't see it helping at Yellowstone. Hawaii is a slow burbler(my word), there's not a lot of pressure there because the pressure never builds. The problem at Yellowstone, as I understand it, is that the pressure is enormous and spread over a large area and it's not being relieved, at least not significantly. Even if you bleed it over a 100 years it's still going to be a significant effect on the climate.

aurora
2009-Jun-02, 01:15 AM
I'm going from memory here but I believe that the source of this activity is below the plate itself, or at least is assumed to be. Something deeper down is punching holes through the plate above similar to the situation with Hawaii, which is also a mid plate fault.

This map shows the previous eruptions very clearly.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/images/2000-rbs-1.3ysrp_large.jpg

The Yellowstone hot spot churned up the Snake River plain like some sort of massive rototiller. Well, not exactly, but that is kind of what it reminds me of.

Bearded One
2009-Jun-02, 01:39 AM
This map shows the previous eruptions very clearly.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/images/2000-rbs-1.3ysrp_large.jpg

The Yellowstone hot spot churned up the Snake River plain like some sort of massive rototiller. Well, not exactly, but that is kind of what it reminds me of.Some tough stuff ahead. Could that prevent a super-eruption?

Hell, I don't know. Interesting stuff to think about though. I'll let the geologists worry about the details. I see no reason to move to London... Yet!

beskeptical
2009-Jun-02, 08:16 AM
This map shows the previous eruptions very clearly.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/images/2000-rbs-1.3ysrp_large.jpg

The Yellowstone hot spot churned up the Snake River plain like some sort of massive rototiller. Well, not exactly, but that is kind of what it reminds me of.While I didn't quite understand the 'Great Eliptical Basin' hypothesis, the plate migrating over a mantle plume seems more consistent with the evidence.

As for another super eruption, I'm afraid I'd say that was inevitable as well. Hopefully not for another few thousand years though.

geonuc
2009-Jun-02, 10:58 AM
Some tough stuff ahead. Could that prevent a super-eruption?
That's an interesting question. 'Ahead' of the plume track lie the Absaroka Mountains, which is a subduction-related volcanic range. From that, I'd infer a large emplacement of plutons from the rising melt. How that would influence subsequent melt rise, this time from the mantle plume, I don't know. But I'd say the mantle plume is gonna come up, and any effect the already emplaced rock might have will be limited to diverting it slightly. Perhaps the next super eruption will just blow a hole in the Absarokas.

aurora
2009-Jun-02, 02:44 PM
But I'd say the mantle plume is gonna come up, and any effect the already emplaced rock might have will be limited to diverting it slightly. Perhaps the next super eruption will just blow a hole in the Absarokas.


That would be my guess. I sort of think the plume will just punch through the terrain, regardless of what that terrain is.

Also it looks like there may be some sort of bow shock effect out in front and to the sides of the plume. Although I don't know enough about the relative ages of the surrounding mountains to know if that is just a coincidence.

dgavin
2009-Jun-02, 07:52 PM
That would be my guess. I sort of think the plume will just punch through the terrain, regardless of what that terrain is.

Also it looks like there may be some sort of bow shock effect out in front and to the sides of the plume. Although I don't know enough about the relative ages of the surrounding mountains to know if that is just a coincidence.

The bow/shock effect is just that, an effect that looks like a bow shock. It's actually (roughly speaking) a volcanic/geothermal/seismically active region that roughly matches the underlying hot-spot plume head shape.

The Newberry portion also has one of these bow shock like areas, and like Wise as does the Long Vally Caldera.

When you join the three bow shock shapes it roughly matches the tomographic imaging of the mantle plume shape.

So it's not just a coincidence, the best way to explain it is there are seismic signatures above the mantle plume in the crust, that to some extent, lets one determine the shape of a plume head as it meats continental crust.

aurora
2009-Jun-02, 08:06 PM
That is interesting.

Hawaii has a bow shock effect also, although there it is mixed up with the subsidence of the islands due to the flexing of the underlying sea floor.

So bow shocks appear to be a factor in hot spots.

BrentArsement
2009-Oct-20, 02:49 PM
Any thoughts on the recent seismic activity.

14 October was quite busy, compared to a 'normal' day. Most of the activity was in the same/near same location.

Thanks ahead for any informational comments.

http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone_full.html

aurora
2009-Oct-20, 02:56 PM
There was a similar swarm in September, and the status stayed "Normal".


During the month of September 2009, 177 earthquakes were located in the Yellowstone region. The largest event was a magnitude 2.3 on September 20 at 6:42 PM MDT, located about 4 miles northwest of Canyon Junction, WY. Two swarms were recorded in at September. The first swarm of 39 earthquakes occurred September 12-17. It was located about 6 miles north northwest of West Yellowstone, MT, with magnitudes ranging from -0.9 to 1.6. The second swarm of 66 earthquakes occurred September 13-18. It was located further south, about 7 miles south southwest of West Thumb, YNP, with magnitudes ranging from -0.5 to 1.8.

Earthquake activity in the Yellowstone region is at relatively normal background levels.

beskeptical
2009-Oct-30, 05:05 AM
I had a great visit to Yellowstone in August, before going on to Burning Man. :D

TheHalcyonYear
2009-Oct-30, 05:32 AM
Yellowstone will blow its top again, but not for a 100,000 years or so. The mean time between eruptions is a long way off and the amount of activity is far too small to signal any sort of major eruption event any time in the next 1000 years for sure.

sarongsong
2009-Oct-30, 06:06 AM
...Because the lifetime of a volcano may be on the order of a million years, dormant volcanoes can become active volcanoes all of a sudden. These are perhaps the most dangerous volcanoes because people living in the vicinity of a dormant volcano may not understand the concept of geologic time, and there is no written record of activity. These people are sometimes difficult to convince when a dormant volcano shows signs of renewed activity.

Yellowstone Caldera would be considered a dormant volcano...

tulane.edu (http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/volhaz&pred.htm)
____________________________________
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
- Yogi Berra

TheHalcyonYear
2009-Oct-30, 06:54 AM
Yellowstone is my no means extinct. It is dormant and there is little question that it will one day erupt with a violence that the modern world has never come close to experiencing. However, it also has a long history of eruption (http://www.anthonares.net/Yellowstone_Caldera_map.gif) that can be read in the geologic record much like a diary. This history suggests that it is extremely unlikely that this caldera will erupt any time in the next several thousand years and most likey long beyond that. On the geologic time scale, the activity that we see in the Yellowstone caldera is much more likely the aftermath of the last eruption event than precursors to a new event.


Edited to add:

Three extremely large explosive eruptions have occurred at Yellowstone in the past 2.1 million years with a recurrence interval of about 600,000 to 800,000 years. The most recent was about 70,000 years ago so we probably are pretty safe for the remainder of our lives and the lives of many generations to come.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-30, 08:15 AM
Yellowstone is my no means extinct.

Who said it was?

geonuc
2009-Oct-30, 08:46 AM
Yellowstone will blow its top again, but not for a 100,000 years or so. The mean time between eruptions is a long way off and the amount of activity is far too small to signal any sort of major eruption event any time in the next 1000 years for sure.
I think you're attributing way too much to periodicity. There's no way you can say Yellowstone will not erupt for 100,000 years (or 1000, you've stated both time periods in one post). While the activity doesn't indicate a major event (or a minor one), that could change tomorrow.

jlhredshift
2009-Oct-30, 01:19 PM
The following is a good overview of the debate and progress in studying the Yellowstone Hot Spot.


Great elliptical basin, western United States: Evidence for top-down control of the Yellowstone hot spot and Columbia River Basalt Group (http://www.mantleplumes.org/CRBEllipse.html)
James W. Sears


Introduction

Geologists debate the origins of hot spots and associated large igneous provinces. Morgan (1972), Richards et al. (1989), and Ernst & Buchan (2001) think that hot spots and large igneous provinces represent outbreaks of deep mantle plumes. In contrast, Anderson (1994) and authors in Foulger et al. (2005) and Foulger & Jurdy (2007) propose that these features may form where lithospheric attenuation triggers decompression melting.

Pierce & Morgan (1992) and Hooper et al. (2007) interpret the Yellowstone hot spot (YHS) and its companion, the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG) of the western United States as having erupted from a Middle Miocene mantle plume. Conversely, Eaton (1984), Hart & Carlson (1987), Smith (1992), Christiansen et al. (2002), Hales et al. (2005), and Hamilton (2007) propose an upper mantle origin. Humphreys et al. (2000) and Yuan & Dueker (2005) show that the tomographic anomaly that may represent the feeder channel for the active YHS volcano does not extend below the upper mantle.

Pierce & Morgan (1992) and Hooper et al. (2007) locate the outbreak region of the YHS/CRBG at the common borders of Idaho, Oregon, and Nevada, the sites of the oldest CRBG flows and the oldest and hottest silicic volcanic fields of the YHS track.

Here I show that the outbreak region occupies the exact center of a surprisingly elliptical structural basin that embraces much of the Great Basin, Columbia River Basin, and upper Missouri River Basin (Figure 1). The track of the YHS curves from the center of the ellipse to its NE side. The elliptical basin is a first-order tectonic element of the Cordilleran lithosphere that began to form during leadup to the outbreak of the YHS/CRBG, and continues to widen today.

EricFD
2009-Oct-30, 04:37 PM
Here is an interesting video produced by the USGS that points out that seismic surveys of the Yellowstone caldera indicate that there simply isn't enough magma left to produce another super-eruption. Yellowstone Eruptions (Part 3 of 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0cVU-Uv7p8)

TheHalcyonYear
2009-Oct-30, 05:21 PM
Here is an interesting video produced by the USGS that points out that seismic surveys of the Yellowstone caldera indicate that there simply isn't enough magma left to produce another super-eruption. Yellowstone Eruptions (Part 3 of 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0cVU-Uv7p8)
Exactly. It will take tens of thousands of years to recharge that area for such an event.

danscope
2009-Oct-30, 06:14 PM
How can you say that when you have no idea what the size of the main
caldera charging plume is?? ??? It could fill in a week for all anyone knows.
This an entirely different game from any other volcanic area on earth.
Unlikely....yes. Safe? No.
It is what it is .

Dan

jj_0001
2009-Oct-30, 06:21 PM
How can you say that when you have no idea what the size of the main
caldera charging plume is?? ??? It could fill in a week for all anyone knows.
This an entirely different game from any other volcanic area on earth.
Unlikely....yes. Safe? No.
It is what it is .

Dan

Really? What would be the conditions under which, as you assert, "it could fill in a week"? What other evidence would be present? How could such other evidence fail to be detected in advance? How is this different from Long Valley or Toba?:whistle:

jj_0001
2009-Oct-30, 06:29 PM
Here is an interesting video produced by the USGS that points out that seismic surveys of the Yellowstone caldera indicate that there simply isn't enough magma left to produce another super-eruption. Yellowstone Eruptions (Part 3 of 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0cVU-Uv7p8)

Excellent except for that spoooooky music. :)

Ok as music, but kinda ominous for the subject...

EricFD
2009-Oct-30, 06:42 PM
How can you say that when you have no idea what the size of the main
caldera charging plume is?? ??? It could fill in a week for all anyone knows.
This an entirely different game from any other volcanic area on earth.
Unlikely....yes. Safe? No.
It is what it is .

Dan

Well, the seismic data seems to indicate that the charging mantle plume is not generating enough heat to melt enough rock in the lithosphere to provide enough magma in the lithosphere to produce another supervolcanic eruption.

Bear in mind when, I say seismic data, I'm not talking about the number of earthquakes or tremors that occur or their severity, but rather seismic activity--some natural, some artificial--used to map out the two remaining magma chambers beneath the Yellowstone caldera. And considering that catastrophic supereruptions have occurred in the Yellowstone caldera on average every 730,000 years, you can't say that Yellowstone is overdue for a supereruption.

Don't forget too, a lot of that heat from the mantle plume is dissipated in non-explosive eruptions of the low viscosity mafic magma extruded as basaltic lava surrounding the rhyolitic area that makes up the Yellowstone caldera. Could another supereruption occur. Sure! It's possible. Is it likely. No. It's very unlikely. We will see eruptions from the Yellowstone caldera, but at most, they will be comparable to the typical eruption of a composite or stratovolcano like Mt. Redoubt this last year....certainly nothing nationally, much less globally catastrophic. :)

Eric

TheHalcyonYear
2009-Oct-30, 06:43 PM
How can you say that when you have no idea what the size of the main
caldera charging plume is?? ??? It could fill in a week for all anyone knows.
This an entirely different game from any other volcanic area on earth.
Unlikely....yes. Safe? No.
It is what it is .

Dan
If you have such questions I would suggest that you do some reading in the geosciences. There is a great deal that can be discerned from the long history of eruption events along the plume responsible for the long history of eruptions shown on the map in one of my previous posts.

danscope
2009-Oct-30, 06:47 PM
Consider a larger plume than is found at Toba or most any other site.
The enormous size of Yellowstone caldera suggests that it could have an extraordinary charging system, unlike the slow and steady systems seen elsewhere.
We really have nothing to base our best estimates on how quickly it can become truly active to the point of bursting the plug and having a massive eruption . I am not wishing for this event. We study it closely so as to grasp as much information as we can. No one can determine how much notice we shall have . It remains a natural wonder.

Dan

TheHalcyonYear
2009-Oct-30, 06:56 PM
Consider a larger plume than is found at Toba or most any other site.
The enormous size of Yellowstone caldera suggests that it could have an extraordinary charging system, unlike the slow and steady systems seen elsewhere.
We really have nothing to base our best estimates on how quickly it can become truly active to the point of bursting the plug and having a massive eruption . I am not wishing for this event. We study it closely so as to grasp as much information as we can. No one can determine how much notice we shall have . It remains a natural wonder.

Dan
This is true, and I don't suggest that we can rely on its regularity as if it were tied to a clock. However, there are hundreds of thousands of years or more of history associated with this hotspot and this provides significant insight into its behavior.

There is no way to be certain about the timing of events, hence the extremely large error bars associated with the estimates of recurrence times. However, even with those error bars, there are long intervals between eruptions at Yellowstone. The chances of a major eruption event at Yellowstone in the next 1000 years is essentially 0.0. Beyond that point the probabilities begin to grow very slowly.

EricFD
2009-Oct-30, 07:02 PM
Consider a larger plume than is found at Toba or most any other site.
The enormous size of Yellowstone caldera suggests that it could have an extraordinary charging system, unlike the slow and steady systems seen elsewhere.
We really have nothing to base our best estimates on how quickly it can become truly active to the point of bursting the plug and having a massive eruption . I am not wishing for this event. We study it closely so as to grasp as much information as we can. No one can determine how much notice we shall have . It remains a natural wonder.

Dan

Actually, we do. And there is even controversy now whether or not hotspots or mantle plumes are even stationary as was once believed. There is also controversy about whether or not these plumes are shallow or deep. Here are a few links on the subject:

Beneath Yellowstone: Evaluating Plume and Nonplume Models Using Teleseismic Images of the Upper Mantle (http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart290C/Humphreys_YSHSmodels_GSAToday00.pdf)

Upper-mantle origin of the Yellowstone hotspot (http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/114/10/1245)

Mantle plumes - both deep and shallow (http://records.viu.ca/~earles/mantle-plume-depths-jan04.htm)

aurora
2009-Oct-30, 07:40 PM
If hot spots are not stationary, it is interesting that they always seem to move opposite the drifting plate.

Unless someone has an example of a hot spot that moves in the same direction or at right angles to a plate?

TheHalcyonYear
2009-Oct-30, 07:52 PM
If hot spots are not stationary, it is interesting that they always seem to move opposite the drifting plate.

Unless someone has an example of a hot spot that moves in the same direction or at right angles to a plate?
There is no question that a major component of the movement is plate movement. This is well documented in the emperor sea mounts that document the pacific plate movement. However, there are questions as to whether plate movement alone can account for all relative movement between plate and plume.

EricFD
2009-Oct-30, 08:43 PM
Exactly, TheHalcyonYear!

And you have to remember too that when they're talking about whether or not plumes are stationary, they're talking over long periods of time.

Eric

beskeptical
2009-Oct-31, 04:38 AM
...
Edited to add:

Three extremely large explosive eruptions have occurred at Yellowstone in the past 2.1 million years with a recurrence interval of about 600,000 to 800,000 years. The most recent was about 70,000 years ago so we probably are pretty safe for the remainder of our lives and the lives of many generations to come.No, the 70,000 yr ago eruption was a small one. The last major eruption was 640,000 years ago. It deposited the Lava Creek Tuffs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lava_Creek_Tuff). So we are actually in the historic time frame for another major eruption though it could still be a couple hundred thousand years off.

danscope
2009-Oct-31, 04:46 AM
I want to thank you guys for the interesting opinions and the links.
The concept of the plumes moving, even that one, much like Hawaii's is
most interesting .
On the question of activity, is it 600,000 or 730,000 years, or is the range of opportunity nearly open ended or just wide spread?

Dan

dgavin
2009-Oct-31, 02:35 PM
The YNLV Hotspot (Yellowstone-Newberry-Long Valley) is an intresting study, as it apprears there might be part of the same system.

On your question on timing, Dan, most volanoes tend to exhibit cyclic behavior. They erupt, then go quiet while thier magma chamber refills, then they erupt again.

Mt. Redoubt erupts about once every 20 years.
St. Helens erupts about once every 150 years.
Neberry Caldera erupts about once every 2500 years.
Yellostone area has an minor eruption about once every 70000 years, and a supereruption about once every 700,000.

These are basically averages over the life span of the volcano.

It's driven by quite a few variables, such as:

How fast the magma chamber refills, which can change over time. (Yellowstone appears to be slowing down it's fill rate)

What kind of magma the chamber is fillign with. Fluid bassalts can fill a chamber faster then less fluid ryolites or ascendites.

The condition of the volcanic chimney left from the last eruption.

there are quite a few other variables as well. So the cyclic behavior is just really an average, as volcanos age, thier behaviors change over time.

EricFD
2009-Oct-31, 02:45 PM
Very well stated, dgavin and quite accurate! :)

Eric

danscope
2009-Oct-31, 06:04 PM
Hi, As yet, have we any way of sounding the dimensions of the magmatic chamber at a depth of 25 kilometers? I think that mystery may remain unsolved for quite some time.

Dan

dgavin
2009-Oct-31, 11:33 PM
Hi, As yet, have we any way of sounding the dimensions of the magmatic chamber at a depth of 25 kilometers? I think that mystery may remain unsolved for quite some time.

Dan

Dan,

Far as I know Yellowstone cladera is a single chamber volcanic system.

The main Magma chamber is sort of U shaped the upper forks of the U as close as 8km to the surface, and the base of the U as deep as 20km. The bulk of the Magma lies at about 12 km average debth.

There may be a very deep lower magma chamber, but I have not heard of any such chamber being seismicly detected as of yet.

dgavin
2009-Oct-31, 11:40 PM
ok my figures on depths are a little off, here is an accruate soure http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/faqsscience.html

And an image of the chamber itself (siesmic tomology) http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/5718.php

danscope
2009-Nov-01, 01:23 AM
Hi, Interesting links and lucid practical information. Thank you.
Best regards,
Dan

BrentArsement
2009-Dec-21, 11:12 PM
Thanks for the links dgavin. Interesting.

Squink
2010-Jan-19, 04:48 AM
Yellowstone hit by swarm of earthquakes (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14216212?source=rss)
Yellowstone National Park has been rattled by more than 250 earthquakes in the past two days following a period of 11 months of quiet seismic activity in the park.

The quakes have been gaining strength, with a 3.1 tremor recorded at 11:03 a.m. today. A 2.9 quake was recorded at 12:38 p.m.

Prof. Robert B. Smith, a geophysicist at the University of Utah and one of the leading experts on earthquake and volcanic activity at Yellowstone, said that the activity is a "notable swarm."

"The swarm is located about 10 miles northwest of Old Faithful, Wyo., and nine miles southeast of West Yellowstone, Montana," said Smith.
Most are less than magnitude 1; too small to show at USGS map. (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/44.46.-112.-110.php)

Tensor
2010-Jan-19, 04:58 AM
Yellowstone hit by swarm of earthquakes (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14216212?source=rss)
Most are less than magnitude 1; too small to show at USGS map. (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/44.46.-112.-110.php)

Interestingly, I was just now looking at the map, and it appears that there was an earthquake on the order of a mag 4, within that last 15 or so minutes.

dgavin
2010-Jan-19, 08:21 PM
It's looking lively. The strongest events so far (in order) were 3.1, 2.9, 3.4, 3.0 and 3.3 magnitude. While most of the quakes were at a debth of 8-10km, there have been two of the more recent ones (in the 2's magnitude) a debths of less then one km.

There has also been two minor (very minor) sort duration harmonic tremors following some of the quakes. This swarm event was also preceeded by a longer duratation harmonic tremor on the 15th, however it was also a minor tremor.

The rapid decrese in debth towards surface events, is telling me that this is likely a hydrothermal event, and not magma. At this point i'd guess that these events will trail off in about a weeks time. I also don't think there will be any magma eruptions, or hint of magma activity. There might be a slim channe of a new gyser forming, or of some alteration to existing gysers. However take this with a grain of salt, a few days of seismograph readings are really no basis for anything but a guess, at best.

rommel543
2010-Jan-20, 06:49 PM
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/44.46.-112.-110_eqs.php

So far there have been 12 quakes recorded today including a 3.3 and a 3.2

rommel543
2010-Jan-20, 06:56 PM
You know I was wondering, could the earthquake in Haiti have anything to do with the swarm now hitting Yellowstone? A resonance of a sort?

Sam5
2010-Jan-20, 07:07 PM
Here is a recent USGS animation:

http://quake.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Anim/anim_yell.html

Gillianren
2010-Jan-20, 07:10 PM
You know I was wondering, could the earthquake in Haiti have anything to do with the swarm now hitting Yellowstone? A resonance of a sort?

My understanding is no, not really.

korjik
2010-Jan-20, 08:00 PM
My understanding is no, not really.

Maybe this is the beginning of the end. After all, the world is supposed to end the year after next.

:D

dgavin
2010-Jan-20, 08:54 PM
According to USGS 490+ events and still going. They have released an info statement indicating it's Tectonic (Fault related) activity, and not volcanic or hydrothermal.

I'm seeing atleast 4 2 minute duration harmonic tramors on todays seismograph alone, one of them obviously so. So i'm going to stand by my hydrothermal assement for a while longer.

I'll work on some charts (time/debth) (Time/Position) tonight of the events to date.

dgavin
2010-Jan-22, 07:36 PM
I have the charts done, and will export them to graphics for posting here tonight sometime.

dgavin
2010-Jan-22, 07:53 PM
People can wind down thier doomsday clocks!

Look like this swarm of earthquakes might be approaching it's end.

Only 4 events logged today compared to 32 yesterday (for the same time frame).

beskeptical
2010-Jan-22, 08:13 PM
You know I was wondering, could the earthquake in Haiti have anything to do with the swarm now hitting Yellowstone? A resonance of a sort?Quakes rupturing on one part of a fault can shift the stress to another section and subsequently more of the fault or nearby related faults can rupture. But the Haiti quake was much too far away to have any effect on Yellowstone geology.

Also the Haiti quake was not unusual as far as annual quakes around the world go. There are and have been quakes of that magnitude every year somewhere in the world. If they were going to shake anything loose, it would have happened long ago.


Just a comment on the hydrothermic event potential: I was just in Yellowstone last Fall and saw a number of craters from extremely large hydrothermal explosions. While they may not be as exciting as the magma dome rising, they can still be relatively large events.

beskeptical
2010-Jan-22, 08:33 PM
People can wind down thier doomsday clocks!

Look like this swarm of earthquakes might be approaching it's end.

Only 4 events logged today compared to 32 yesterday (for the same time frame).But if you look at the entire swarm, the numbers do not indicate that much regularity as to be able to draw your conclusion based on such a short time sample.

A complete list of earthquakes in the swarm for the last week. (http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone_full.html)

beskeptical
2010-Jan-22, 08:35 PM
Here's the University of Utah site reports if they haven't already been posted:

Yellowstone Region Press Releases (http://www.seis.utah.edu/EQCENTER/PRESS/yell_press.htm)

dgavin
2010-Jan-23, 11:27 PM
Got the plots done, with events of .8 mag and greater, and updated with the last two days of events.

The trends shown from the plots are interesting. There isn't much difference in location (Hydrothermal or Magma activity would usually show a migration of events in some direction). There has been a slight decrease in average depth over time, and a slight decrease in the number of events over the last day.

The swarms appear to occur in bursts, with less activity between those.

So there doesn't seem to be much indication of magma or hydrothermal activity. USGS is indicating it's slip fault activity, but the pattern it's exhibiting is more common of 'Uplift' related swarms. So while it may be in the area of a know slip fault location, the underlying cause is still volcanic, in the form of built up pressures from uplift.

As such the swarm may either cease shortly, or continue tapering off on amount of activity for some time. Usually swarms related to uplift activity can range from a week, to months of time.

dgavin
2010-Jan-25, 02:57 PM
Just a bit of an update on the swarm. The activity slowed down, to the point of only 1 >.8 mag event on the 23, and 6 on the 24th. Yet it seems to have picked up the pace this morning with 4 already.

What is intresting is that are the start of this slow down period on the 22nd, some new seismograph readings showed up. Harmonic tremors, of a much stronger sinatures then the ones noted before. There was one of these on the 22nd, just after 5pm, on the 23th one at 12:45 am, and another set of 3 starting around 5pm and cumulating in the only >mag .8 event of that day at mag 2.1. Another one on the 24th at about 12:45 am again.

Although the larger events were less frequent, the number of smaller event seems consitant at about 1 to 2 per minute. So even thought the larger events slowed down for a bit, the background events did not.

dgavin
2010-Jan-26, 08:06 PM
Ok researched the rather odd timing of the larger harmonic tremors on the seismographs.

They only showed on the one seismograph, and it's close to the west entrance highway (181). So it's not tremors at all, but likely a twice a day heavy hauler type vehicle that seems to have a semi-regular schedule. My appologies on that.

Activity of the swarm continues today, not much new going on with it. As of yesterday there have been over 1271 earthquakes recorded.

dgavin
2010-Jan-27, 07:36 PM
Quake count as of yesterday (26th) is up to 1356.

Today the rate of the small back ground quakes has tapered of from 1-2 a minute to about 1 every 2-3 minutes. Additionaly there have been no more > Magnitude 3 events since the 25th. The reduced activity and magnitudes could be an indication of the swarm slowing down, or an indication of a brief time of quiet. Time will tell.

Zoomer30
2010-Jan-28, 09:29 AM
Just checked http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.html and they just had a 3.2 mag in the same swarm area within the last hour (its 226 MST right now)

Makes you wonder. I worry if a swarm seems to be on the "edge" of the caldera, in my mind you would think their would be a natural "weakness" in that area (ring fracture, etc) that could allow mama a path to the surface. Just like the swarm last year: On the other side of the caldera also near the rim. And Norris is also along the rim.

jj_0001
2010-Jan-28, 06:14 PM
Quake count as of yesterday (26th) is up to 1356.

Today the rate of the small back ground quakes has tapered of from 1-2 a minute to about 1 every 2-3 minutes. Additionaly there have been no more > Magnitude 3 events since the 25th. The reduced activity and magnitudes could be an indication of the swarm slowing down, or an indication of a brief time of quiet. Time will tell.

TWo more over 3.0.

Was the heavy hauler stuff the stuff we see yesterday circa 9:30?

Today's graphs don't show up on the yvo site, I get a broken link. :(

ETA: Today's graphs are back. Must have been teh innertubz broken.


And we see the same wierdness at 9:30 today, so yeah, I doubt mother earth is scheduling things that way for us :)

Nice thud at about 11:03. Double slip?

EATA: How close is this epicenter to Excelsior? :)

dgavin
2010-Jan-28, 07:51 PM
Quake count as of this morning (28th) is 1497.

Looks like the background quakes have picked the pace back up again as well.

Was the heavy hauler stuff the stuff we see yesterday circa 9:30?


Yep! Its making it hard to pick out harmonic tremors though, as the webicorders don-t have the resolution needed to distingush from short HT's and hauler activity.

Nice thud at about 11:03. Double slip?

Looks like a quadruple burst... I've seen that signature before, but it's not restricted to volcanic areas. I'm not sure the underlying cause of the multiple bursts like that. Maybe one of the forums geologists can chime in on it.

EATA: How close is this epicenter to Excelsior?

Excelsior Gyser i assume you mean? It's right smack in the midst of the swarm area.

jj_0001
2010-Jan-28, 08:08 PM
Yep! Its making it hard to pick out harmonic tremors though, as the webicorders don-t have the resolution needed to distingush from short HT's and hauler activity.


It just looks wrong, compared to anything else, it has an envelope that looks like "coming and then going", which really does look like something really heavy driving down the road.



Nice thud at about 11:03. Double slip?

Looks like a quadruple burst...


Heh, yeah, it was double the first time I looked. :) Seems to have rumbled on. :)



I've seen that signature before, but it's not restricted to volcanic areas. I'm not sure the underlying cause of the multiple bursts like that. Maybe one of the forums geologists can chime in on it.


If it's a slip, just some more rock breaking is my guess. And I see no reason to assume it's not a slip.

Also, it's kind annoying that the one seismograph is off line. Looking just at the relative magnitudes of the various rumbles would be ineresting, even if I can't figure out how to get good time-delay numbers.

dgavin
2010-Jan-29, 08:00 PM
No update on the quake counts today.

The activity breifly subsided for about 4 hours today, and then started back up. Swarms do that occasionally so it really doesn't mean much, other then it happened.

However I have finnaly found /one/ indication that there have been some measured changes to hydrothermal systems occuring at the same time as this swarm.

From Dr. Erik Klemetti's blog


4. Finally, although we have accessory anecdotal evidence of changes in the hydrothermal/magmatic system (e.g., Old Faithful isn't so faithful, the long-lived bulging under Yellowstone Lake, etc.), these correlations do not automatically lead to causation.

...

Just because we might see signs of change in the active systems roughly correlated with an earthquake swarm doesn't mean that they must be related. However, it is a good idea to continue look for changes that could end up pointing towards a magmatic causation ... with enough evidence.

This is also not surprising, swarms often cause breif changes to hydrothemal venting (increases or decreases) which usualy resume thier normal patterens after the swarm is over.

I can't find iny information more though, not even what hydrothermal systems these have seen changes at yet.

beskeptical
2010-Jan-30, 02:28 AM
Here's the University of Utah site reports if they haven't already been posted:

Yellowstone Region Press Releases (http://www.seis.utah.edu/EQCENTER/PRESS/yell_press.htm)From the 28th update:
There have been 1,497 located earthquakes in the swarm of magnitude 0.4 to 3.8 up to 9AM January 28, 2010. This includes 12 events of magnitude larger than 3, with 111 events of magnitude 2 to 3, and 1,374 events of magnitude less than 2. There have been multiple personal reports of ground shaking from observers inside the Park and in surrounding areas for some of the larger events (for felt reports, please visit http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/dyfi/). Earthquake swarms are relatively common in Yellowstone....

...Yellowstone Volcano Observatory scientists still consider that the swarm events are likely the result of slip on pre-existing faults and are not thought to be caused by underground movement of magma. Currently there is no indication of premonitory volcanic or hydrothermal activity, but ongoing observations and analyses will continue to evaluate these different sources.

rubycheif
2010-Feb-01, 12:20 AM
So what do you guys think?

Anything to be worried about?

Swift
2010-Feb-01, 02:30 AM
Anything to be worried about?
Nope.

The only thing I worry about with regard to Yellowstone is when can I get back there for a vacation and can I get a room in one of the lodges. ;)

rubycheif
2010-Feb-01, 03:57 AM
Nope.

The only thing I worry about with regard to Yellowstone is when can I get back there for a vacation and can I get a room in one of the lodges. ;)

Haha, thats nice to hear :)

dgavin
2010-Feb-02, 08:16 PM
So what do you guys think?

Anything to be worried about?

Nope. Just be standard earhtquates still appearing unrelated to anything like magma or steam moving underground. As I metnioned earlier it is likely a swarm of EQ's generated by the general uplift at the Yellowstone region.



As to the current status, quake count up to 1660 as of today, and the swarm still appears to be slowing down.

The swarm has it's own webpage now. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2010/10swarm.php

Check out the RSAM plot about middle of that web page, for a graph of the quakes aplitudes over time.

rommel543
2010-Feb-02, 10:13 PM
Out of curiosity, if the volcano started going into a state that it was going to erupt what kind of signs would we see. Would we some sort of rising cone like Anak Krakatau over years, or would there simply be an explosion ripping the ground open one day.

jj_0001
2010-Feb-03, 12:19 AM
Out of curiosity, if the volcano started going into a state that it was going to erupt what kind of signs would we see. Would we some sort of rising cone like Anak Krakatau over years, or would there simply be an explosion ripping the ground open one day.


Well, a (*&()load of long-period, low-level earthquakes would be a hint that there was magma movement. That, coupled with very rapid uplift (or drop) in parts of the caldera, a lot of small regular quakes as the crust adjusted, etc, would be a none to subtle hint.

Of course, hydrothermal movement would create some of the same symptoms, and is much more likely, but could probably be distinguished over time by the speed of movement of whatever is moving.

dgavin
2010-Feb-03, 02:48 PM
Besides what jj said, there would be some other indicators.

Likely it would start with an EQ swarm much like we are seeing, however, instead of slowing down though it would gradually intensify, and get shallowed in depth. When the harmonic tremors started showing up, lasting minutes to hours (the low-level earthquakes JJ mentioned) that would indicate either hydrothermal or magmatic movement. Next there would be gas emissions (C02 and HSu2) that reach some significant amounts. About at the same time as the gas emissions started, there would be changes in some of the hydrothermal vents. Water temperature increases, increased frequency of geyser activity, changes in acidity and chemicals of the hydrothermal vents. In the case of magmatic buildup, there would be uplift or possibly swelling of an existing feature above the area. In the case of just hydrothermal activity, that would cumulate in what is known as an explosive geyser (these are rarely large).

The swarms would and the harmonic tremors would continue to intensify, gas emissions increase, and the ground begin to deform significantly.

This -could- all come to naught though, if the shallowness of the movement doest reach within the upper 2km of the surface. If it does reach that shallow of a depth, the magma usually would begin to pool and build up more for some time (weeks to years) until at some point the magma can force it's way up-wards, though the now stressed out and fracturing surface above it. At this point signs of Chugging (thing of boiling on a scale thats immense) start up, and gas vents open up on the surface.

If there is enough pressure in the newly formed magma pool, it will eventually erupt, following signals of the magma getting closer to the surface. If not, the gas vents would eventually release enough pressure and vent enough heat that the new magma pool begins to slowly solidify.

dgavin
2010-Feb-03, 09:23 PM
As of today, Quake count up to 1719 quakes. There was a six hour increase in quake activity yesterday which then settled back down to to current levels.

It also appears that the swarm has changed depth. Starting at the time of six hour increase yesterday, and continuing into today, the depth of the quakes has rather spontaneosly changed from 12-8km depth, to 8-5km depth. There has also been 2 quakes less then 1km quakes with this new burst of activity.

This is most likely a just secondary swarm at a different depth. There was no indication of a gradualy lessenng of depth indicating magma or hydrothermal motion. Still appears to be either a slip fault related, or uplift related swarm.

There is another burst of increased activity going on right now, but at this time no depth readings from it.

dgavin
2010-Feb-04, 04:45 AM
Update:

As of yet the EQ list summary hasn't been updated since late yesterday (2nd).

Additionally a small series of low amplitude tremors, have been picked up by most seismographs in the region, apparent for the other side of the caldera from the swarm, the most notable being at 14:02 which was picked up on seismograph station in western Yellowstone, Tetons and into Idaho. The YSB station seems to be the closest to all these tremor events.

You'll notice I did not say harmonic tremors, these all were only about 2 minutes in duration, there was only about 7 of them, and while the amplitude signature does not appear as a normal EQ would, they also don't seem to be long duration harmonic/volcanic tremors. Without higher resolution data then the webicorders display I'm not able to identify what they are exactly.

I suspect though that the lack of updates to the EQ list, the noted changes one geologist indicated at still unidentified hydrothermal vents/geysers/, and the now odd tremors at another region in the caldera, has USGS busy trying to determine what relation they have, if any.

At this point, two out of the 7 indicators of volcanic activity have been confirmed, with a possible 3rd added today with the tremors around YSB.

At this point I'm willing to step on a limb and say there may be about a 0.1% chance of some sort of eventual activity (hydrothermal or magmatic) at Yellowstone.

This is nothing to get excited over, my personal feeling is the YSB events are unrelated to the swarms. And even if something eventually was to happen, it could simply be something akin to a new geyser opening up, or an old one reactivating.

There just isn't enough data, nor enough indicators to say what is happening at this point, and if the 2/possibly 3 indicators are related events or not.

If the EQ list doesn't pick up by noon tomorrow, I'll email someone at CVO and see if I can find out whats up with that at-least. The Yellowstone geologists may just all be out doing field work at Yellowstone so no one is available to review and update the lists.

jj_0001
2010-Feb-05, 12:10 AM
What the heck was that thing at circa 13:20 today, give or take? It seems like it's more widespread, lasted about 5 minutes. Hydrothermal explosion? Or just weird quake?

ETA: It seems to show up earliest at the westernmost sites near Hegben, unless I'm misreading things?

And, maybe a slide or something near the same time at the eastern side? I am guessing there are two events on the YSB trace overlapping?

YMV looks more like traffic.

dgavin
2010-Feb-05, 02:19 AM
That large event was a 5.9 Mag quake just offshore of Fotuna CA, on the Juan de Fuca plate.

Google map of Epicenter (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.4177+-124.9193(M5.9+-+OFFSHORE+NORTHERN+CALIFORNIA+-+2010+February+04++20:20:22+UTC)&f=d&t=h&hl=e&ie=UTF8&ll=40.409314,-124.925537&spn=2.484456,4.625244&z=8)

*edit to add*

When you see the wave form taking on the slow oscillation patterns to-wards the end of an event like you saw on the Yellowstone seismographs, that is the indication of a distant earth quake, strong enough that it caused the planet/or parts of it to "Ring Like a Bell".

If it had been a quake in Yellowstone followed by a Harmonic Tremor, the tremor waves forms would be more compressed than those. Tremor wave forms are actually very similar to wind in forest waves forms, and traffic wave forms on the weibicorders. If you have access to the direct feeds (i used to but don't anymore) you can distinguish between those three types a lot easier.

jj_0001
2010-Feb-05, 04:31 AM
That large event was a 5.9 Mag quake just offshore of Fotuna CA, on the Juan de Fuca plate.

Google map of Epicenter (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.4177+-124.9193(M5.9+-+OFFSHORE+NORTHERN+CALIFORNIA+-+2010+February+04++20:20:22+UTC)&f=d&t=h&hl=e&ie=UTF8&ll=40.409314,-124.925537&spn=2.484456,4.625244&z=8)

*edit to add*

When you see the wave form taking on the slow oscillation patterns to-wards the end of an event like you saw on the Yellowstone seismographs, that is the indication of a distant earth quake, strong enough that it caused the planet/or parts of it to "Ring Like a Bell".

If it had been a quake in Yellowstone followed by a Harmonic Tremor, the tremor waves forms would be more compressed than those. Tremor wave forms are actually very similar to wind in forest waves forms, and traffic wave forms on the weibicorders. If you have access to the direct feeds (i used to but don't anymore) you can distinguish between those three types a lot easier.


Aha, and we see some local resonances, or lack thereof at one of the sites.

How come one can not access the direct waveforms? I dare say I could accomplish a harmonic analysis, to say the least. :)

dgavin
2010-Feb-05, 02:15 PM
I am not sure why, but almost all of the Western US Seismographs are not viewable using the IRIS VASE viewer or the GEE Project viewer. Its a bit iritating to have the webicorders, but not be able to zoom in onto the wave forms when better resolution needed.

dgavin
2010-Feb-05, 08:24 PM
Update as of this morning, Feb 5th:

Quake count is now up to 1771 quakes. Activity of the swarm began slowing again on the 4th, likewise is was all at the 12-8km depth again. The Feb2nd/3rd events at the 8-5km depth may have been a secondary swarm.

Activity today is almost non existent, with only 9 events so far, and all under magnitude 0.2.

The tremors around the YSB seismograph station at other side of the caldera have also seemed to have slowed down to almost nothing.

dgavin
2010-Feb-08, 01:53 AM
Well two days and all has been quiet on the seismographs. The swarm may be over with.

dgavin
2010-Feb-09, 09:14 PM
Update as of Feb 8th: The swarm activity is still very slow. Quake count now up to 1799 quakes.

dgavin
2010-Feb-10, 03:17 PM
The swarm has slowed down even more. At this point i'm going to say that it is likely done.

The tremors at the other end of the caldera at YSB station have continued, but at a much less frequent rate.

I still have no further information on the geothermal changes that one Dr. mentioned on his blog. So it's looking like all three type of events are must likely unrelated, and coincidental in thier timing.

I'll keep monitoring things and try to get a final quake count posted soon.

dgavin
2010-Feb-14, 07:27 AM
Total quake count for the swarm was 1,805 as of the 8th.

It's be very quiet, up until today, where there was a short burst of earthquakes. Plus a signal of slow flault slipage. It looks a lot like a tremor, but only lasts a few minutes. It quieted down afterwards again. Todays events I think will add 20-22 quakes to the total count.

jj_0001
2010-Feb-23, 09:16 PM
Looks like a few more recently, but I think (if I am reading the map right) these are nw of the previous lot. All quite small, no 3's.

dgavin
2010-Feb-24, 08:41 PM
Yes, those are normal background events. There arearound 70-80 events a month at Yellowstone.

Not much has changed since my last post, including the offical quake count, thats still at 1805. So the later 20 quake event is not being inlcuded as part of the swarm.

Basicaly the swarm is over. Just have to wait now to see if there were any hydrothermal changes related to it.

dgavin
2010-Mar-02, 08:11 PM
As of USGS report yesterday, total quake count for this swarm officially stands at 1809 earthquakes, also it is now considered officialy done.

Quite a swarm overall and still no indications if it affected any hydrothermal systems.

Squink
2010-Apr-04, 01:37 PM
Basically the swarm is over. Just have to wait now to see if there were any hydrothermal changes related to it.
Dénouement: Magnitude 3.2 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING 2010 April 04 03:15:52 UTC (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/uu00002589.php)
Looks to be in same area as the swarm.
Depth of 0 km.
Perhaps the park picked up a new bubbling mudpot this morning.

Squink
2010-Apr-06, 02:29 PM
Depth of 0 km.
Depth's been upped to 5.4 km, mag to 3.3.
A couple 3.0s in the same area on the 4th.
Plus much quivering.
Looks like the swarm's back on. (http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/111-45_full.html)

dgavin
2010-Apr-08, 07:49 PM
This is a fairly minor swarm, however as of today there may have been a Harmonic Tremor thats not geyser related detected. This event occurs just after 9:48 am MST on the seismographs, and shows on /all/ seismographs in the regions. It's not road noise, and it's not an earthquake. As it shows up on seismographs on the other side of the state, at this point I'd say it was likely not hydrothermal either.

A very rough estimate based to the arrival time on each seismograph, places this event in the same general area as this mini swarm and the major swarm earlier this year.

If this was truly an HT like it seems to be, then it was a very very minor one, only lasting 8 minutes. The Short duration indicates that it is likely not a sign of Magma movement either.

At this point I doubt it's a newsworthy event. It's hard to say what sort of HT this was, it could be something as simple as a unknown slow/slip fault in the region.

dgavin
2010-Apr-09, 02:36 PM
There was another harmonic tremor event yesterday starting around 1249 MST and lasting until almost 2018. It was less intense the the shorter earlier one, but again it was picked up at various seismographs in the area for the west side of the lake into Idaho.

Things seem quiet this morning so far. The 8 hour long tremor likely means hydrothermal or magmatic movement of some kind. If this trend continues I'm sure USGS will make some statement about it soon, but at this point no reason to start building shelters to hide in.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Apr-09, 09:18 PM
This could be the next big one in Yellowstone!! Oh wait, maybe not.

danscope
2010-Apr-09, 09:22 PM
Don't wish for a big event. It will probably bury the undershorts factory. Then what will you do? (ala Karl Malden...)What will yu do? :)


Best regards,
Dan

dgavin
2010-Apr-12, 06:41 PM
Well it's be fairly quiet for the last three days, infact less daily activity at yellowstone then normal since that 8 hour long event.

Although it bears all the signature's of a Harmonic Tremor, it could still be some sort of slow slipping fault.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Apr-12, 10:35 PM
The Yellowstone Caldera is definitely active and another huge explosion is almost certain to take place. However, it most likely will not occur for a period of time measured in tens of thousands of years.

mugaliens
2010-Apr-13, 04:52 AM
The Yellowstone Caldera is definitely active and another huge explosion is almost certain to take place. However, it most likely will not occur for a period of time measured in tens of thousands of years.

Agreed. Six thousand, at least, and possibly as much as 20,000 years, according to previous cycles.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Apr-13, 07:04 AM
Agreed. Six thousand, at least, and possibly as much as 20,000 years, according to previous cycles.
Thanks, I was too lazy to look up an exact number. I knew it big enough to not lose much sleep over though. :)

jj_0001
2010-Apr-13, 11:44 PM
Agreed. Six thousand, at least, and possibly as much as 20,000 years, according to previous cycles.

I'm curious how you get those numbers. At one point, it was well over 700kyears between major events.

Furthermore, "past performance does not ensure future performance". It could just go to sleep, start to uplift tomorrow ...

danscope
2010-Apr-14, 04:06 AM
Like one philosopher once said: " you never know, ya know? Sometimes, ya know,.... ya think ya know, but....ya know; You never know....
ya know? Ya never know."

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Apr-14, 04:18 AM
I'm curious how you get those numbers. At one point, it was well over 700kyears between major events.

Furthermore, "past performance does not ensure future performance". It could just go to sleep, start to uplift tomorrow ...
It depends on the nature of the event being predicted. Yellowstone has a history of really major eruptions with lesser eruptions interspersed between. However one would not want to be around for even some of the lesser eruptions and definitely not for one of the really major ones. I should also add that we are not talking about old faithful here. None of these events have consistent recurrence intervals. So the error bars can be pretty big.

mugaliens
2010-Apr-14, 04:50 AM
I'm curious how you get those numbers. At one point, it was well over 700kyears between major events.

I'm curious, too, as I seem to be cross-remembering these numbers with another, unrelated phenomena!


Furthermore, "past performance does not ensure future performance". It could just go to sleep, start to uplift tomorrow ...

Your opinion is in good company: "The U.S. Geological Survey, University of Utah and National Park Service scientists with the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory maintain that they "see no evidence that another such cataclysmic eruption will occur at Yellowstone in the foreseeable future. Recurrence intervals of these events are neither regular nor predictable." - Jacob B. Lowenstern; Robert L. Christiansen, Robert B. Smith, Lisa A. Morgan, and Henry Heasler (2005-05-10). Steam Explosions, Earthquakes, and Volcanic Eruptions—What’s in Yellowstone’s Future? - U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005-3024. United States Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3024/."

dgavin
2010-Apr-15, 03:33 AM
There was a 4.4 Quake in Montana today, not to far from Yellowstone siesmographs. The siesmographs in the yellowstone area picked up a small precurusor event, then the main event, and some of the after shoocks. It's nothign related to the Caldera itself, but it did make for an intresting webicorder viewing day.

dgavin
2010-May-03, 07:20 PM
Monthly USGS Update out today.

The Swarm is now named the Madison Plateau Swarm, and consists of a quake count in the ~2400 range (including april events)

Excerpts from the latest report (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2010/10swarm.php)on the Swarm


Visual observation of landforms and geothermal features by Yellowstone National Park personnel did not show any changes that could be attributed to the earthquakes. This swarm is now the second largest recorded swarm at Yellowstone.

...

Calculations, by the University of Utah Seismology Research Group, of the total seismic energy released by all the swarm earthquakes corresponds to one earthquake with an approximate magnitude of 4.4.

dgavin
2010-Jun-07, 07:03 PM
10 more very minor quakes in the Madison Plateau Swarm region on the 3rd and 4th. Although it's slowed down, it's not quite done yet.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jun-07, 11:22 PM
What's the point of this thread?

You're like a man watching a road, taking every car as a sign for the next gridlock.

danscope
2010-Jun-07, 11:26 PM
There are people who take "an early" interest in such things. And it beats soap opera .
Press on, Sir Gavin. Your work awaits you.

jlhredshift
2010-Jun-08, 12:45 AM
Hey, I like to watch soil formation. Comparitively speaking Yellowstone is moving quickly. You go Sir Gavin.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Jun-08, 04:13 AM
OH MY GOD!! She's gunna blow!!! :exclaim:

:clap:

danscope
2010-Jun-08, 04:45 AM
Yes..... every 90 minutes or so. :)

dgavin
2010-Jun-08, 03:02 PM
What's the point of this thread?

You're like a man watching a road, taking every car as a sign for the next gridlock.

It's related to planatary sciences. I'd give my eye teeth and my gold tooth to spend six months on IO with siesmology equipment and remote cameras. It's volcanoes make ours look like tinker toys, and it's driven by gravitational process instead of techtonics. It's sort of a vulcanologists dream place to visit.

And as the others said there is interest in Volcanoes on Baut. By logging events here, even if akin to watchign grass grow, if they do become more significant then people have the oppertunity to know about it before something major might happens.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Jun-08, 05:45 PM
And as the others said there is interest in Volcanoes on Baut. By logging events here, even if akin to watchign grass grow, if they do become more significant then people have the oppertunity to know about it before something major might happens.
I think the question is what does the log here add when These events are already logged in much greater detail elsewhere? Perhaps a monthly summary of activity with a pointer to other logs would better serve this forum.

jj_0001
2010-Jun-08, 06:11 PM
I must say that I watch this thread simply out of interest. I really don't understand why someone who wasn't interested would read it, let alone complain about it. I appreciate not having to go digging myself.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Jun-08, 06:17 PM
I must say that I watch this thread simply out of interest. I really don't understand why someone who wasn't interested would read it, let alone complain about it. I appreciate not having to go digging myself.
Well since the subject of understanding has been raised. I can understand that someone who is interested in this thread might ask that it stay the same. However, I don't really understand why someone like that has to comment on those who might offer constructive criticism of one sort or another.

dgavin
2010-Jun-08, 06:50 PM
I think the question is what does the log here add when These events are already logged in much greater detail elsewhere? Perhaps a monthly summary of activity with a pointer to other logs would better serve this forum.

Quite a few things, though they are not always evident.

1. There have been times where I've produced my own time/depth, magnitude, and positional plots months ahead of time before USGS ever does, if they ever do.

2. USGS won't report on harmonic tremors at all, unless it's evedent that theose are gettign severe and/or more frequent. It's understandable though, if they had mentioned there were two harmonic tremors asscociated with this latest swarm, there would of been public concern, possibly panic. I'm not under such a constraint being a amature vulcanologist.

3. I sometimes send questions to USGS contact which people ask here, and post responses. Example would be the Pink Dactite's question in the St. Helens threads.

4. Sometimes I don't update these threads for quite some time. The St. Helens threads are faily static right now, while I'm waiting on more data about erosion processes to post there. The Mt. Cleavland Volcano would be another example, where I just recently posted a notice that it's emitting ash again, after some time being quiet.

So updates happen when there is some event going on. If it's quiet the threads become quiet.

5. I can understand your concern about posting a log in such a manner on what in nominaly an astronomy forum. But this all started back in early 2000's with the St. Helen's threads, and the process of posting intresting, if not notable events was born there. There were a lot of people asking and thanking for the updates back then, and even asking me to continue them, so I have.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Jun-08, 06:51 PM
Quite a few things, though they are not always evident.

1. There have been times where I've produced my own time/depth, magnitude, and positional plots months ahead of time before USGS ever does, if they ever do.

2. USGS won't report on harmonic tremors at all, unless it's evedent that theose are gettign severe and/or more frequent. It's understandable though, if they had mentioned there were two harmonic tremors asscociated with this latest swarm, there would of been public concern, possibly panic. I'm not under such a constraint being a amature vulcanologist.

3. I sometimes send questions to USGS contact which people ask here, and post responses. Example would be the Pink Dactite's question in the St. Helens threads.

4. Sometimes I don't update these threads for quite some time. The St. Helens threads are faily static right now, while I'm waiting on more data about erosion processes to post there. The Mt. Cleavland Volcano would be another example, where I just recently posted a notice that it's emitting ash again, after some time being quiet.

So updates happen when there is some event going on. If it's quiet the threads become quiet.

5. I can understand your concern about posting a log in such a manner on what in nominaly an astronomy forum. But this all started back in early 2000's with the St. Helen's threads, and the process of posting intresting, if not notable events was born there. There were a lot of people asking and thanking for the updates back then, and even asking me to continue them, so I have.
okie dokie, knock yourself out buddy.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jun-08, 07:05 PM
So what is the criterion exactly for what gets reported here?
Do you have a specific cutoff where everything above gets reported and everything below don't or does that shift over time so smaller activity gets reported in quiet times.
And is it certain that everything above the cutoff gets reported?

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Jun-08, 07:21 PM
So what is the criterion exactly for what gets reported here?
Do you have a specific cutoff where everything above gets reported and everything below don't or does that shift over time so smaller activity gets reported in quiet times.
And is it certain that everything above the cutoff gets reported?
Not sure who you're addressing, but I think that people suggested that there might be more appropriate places for the post, but don't think anyone suggested that there are any criteria.

dgavin
2010-Jun-08, 07:24 PM
So what is the criterion exactly for what gets reported here?
Do you have a specific cutoff where everything above gets reported and everything below don't or does that shift over time so smaller activity gets reported in quiet times.
And is it certain that everything above the cutoff gets reported?

Well in the specifc instance of this latest swarm, basicaly if there are around/over 10 events occuring over a day or two day time frame, I post a quick notice on it. When USGS posts updates, I will usually summarize it here if there were changes from the previous one. Also if I see something unusual on the siesmorgraphs, I may also post about those specific events.

But basically in way yes, smaller activity may be reported in quieter times, especialy if USGS is counting them towards being part a specific swarm, like in this case. If they seem unrelated to a specific swarm, then I typically don't report on them.

If there are enough events in a specific time frame, I sometimes plot the data to see if there are any sort of trends. I had ploted out the general northward direction of the Yellowstone Lake swarm last year a few weeks before USGS did. Even did a few cusom plots after one persons request.

Swift
2010-Jun-08, 07:27 PM
What's the point of this thread?

You're like a man watching a road, taking every car as a sign for the next gridlock.

I must say that I watch this thread simply out of interest. I really don't understand why someone who wasn't interested would read it, let alone complain about it. I appreciate not having to go digging myself.


Well since the subject of understanding has been raised. I can understand that someone who is interested in this thread might ask that it stay the same. However, I don't really understand why someone like that has to comment on those who might offer constructive criticism of one sort or another.
- quoting just some of the relevant quotes -

OK, enough metadiscussion everyone. Henrik, your first post was not appropriate, and the continuing discussion is just making it worse. All of you should know that meta-discussions about thread topics should occur in Forum Feedback (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php/4-Forum-Introductions-and-Feedback) and if you have a problem with a thread and/or its contents, you report the post.

I have absolutely no problem with this and/or similar threads currently in Science & Technology. If anyone has a different opinion, that's fine, you know the proper way to bring up those concerns.

Now back to the geothermal activity, already in progress.

flynjack1
2010-Jun-08, 08:07 PM
I for one find this thread interesting and find the play by play of interest. Thanks Dgavin, redshift and others.

dgavin
2010-Jun-09, 01:27 AM
In deference to the Moderators command.

22 more minor quakes with this swarm, on the 6th and 7th. most of them under 1 magnitude.

dgavin
2010-Jun-10, 06:56 PM
USGS Updates on this Latest Swarm http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2010/10swarm.php

Summary of that link:

Total Quake count now at 2,347 quakes.
Swarm still in progress, but slower then intial activity.
Now classified as the Second Largest recorded swarm at Yellowstone
Still no Hydrothermal or Geological changes noted.
Undelying cause of swarm, still unknown and being researched. It's felt it's not Magma intrusion related though.

jlhredshift
2010-Jun-11, 11:32 AM
USGS Updates on this Latest Swarm http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2010/10swarm.php

Summary of that link:

Total Quake count now at 2,347 quakes.
Swarm still in progress, but slower then intial activity.
Now classified as the Second Largest recorded swarm at Yellowstone
Still no Hydrothermal or Geological changes noted.
Undelying cause of swarm, still unknown and being researched. It's felt it's not Magma intrusion related though.


Question, could swarms be as much related to settling down (literally, as in direction), as otherwise?

dgavin
2010-Jun-11, 06:40 PM
Most definately they can be.

Lastest GPS still has Yellowstone still in an inflation cycle, but it's slowed down significantly from it's more active periods of inflation. Overall it has periods of both inflation and deflation, and its on the ebb of an inflation period. The last inflation period ended in 1985, so rougly speaking, it has about a 20-30 year cycle for this.

dgavin
2010-Jun-17, 02:13 PM
Intresting development in the swarm. On Sat the 12th there was another small burst of activity around 22 quakes, same region, but the depth of these events are from 2-4 km depth instead the the 6-10km depth of the many earlier events. Looking back there does seem to be a gradual shallowing of the depth of the quake events recently.

While it is far to soon to make any guesses about this, if this shallowing trend continues, it might mean something more then simple fault activity. Hard to say at this point, it will really depend if the swarm events keep gettign shallower, or if the activity moves back down to it original depths.

dgavin
2010-Jun-17, 06:47 PM
Intresting development in the swarm. On Sat the 12th there was another small burst of activity around 22 quakes, same region, but the depth of these events are from 2-4 km depth instead the the 6-10km depth of the many earlier events. Looking back there does seem to be a gradual shallowing of the depth of the quake events recently.

While it is far to soon to make any guesses about this, if this shallowing trend continues, it might mean something more then simple fault activity. Hard to say at this point, it will really depend if the swarm events keep gettign shallower, or if the activity moves back down to it original depths.

Disreguard most of my previous post,

I grabed the events and plotted them with the rest of the swarm this morning, and forgot to narrow down the long/lat ranges i was working with. My bad there.

These 22 events from the 12th are related to previous years Yellowstone Lake swarm, and at a very similar depth to those, but are on the other side of a know fault zone compared to last years swarm. Once again these are not occurring in the fault region, but in an area without known faults.

However the events from he last 2 weeks in context to the currently ongoing swarm, did have a slight reduction in depth, but at this point it's nothing to be concerned over.

dgavin
2010-Jun-25, 06:14 PM
The swarm activity is still ongoing, although at a much reduced rate. About 16 more events in the last week. Other then that not much new to report.

dgavin
2010-Jul-13, 07:08 PM
Only about 6 more very minro events in the last two weeks. It looks like this swarm might be coming to an end finnaly, although it is still a bit too soon to say that for certain.

jj_0001
2010-Jul-26, 06:16 AM
A couple of surface visual observations from the latter part of this week:

1) "Canary Spring" at Mammoth Hot Springs is going great guns.
2) Echinus Geyser and Steamboat Geyser are presently dead as doornails, but of course that's always subject to change at a whim of nature
3) Most of Norris Basin is hot, hot, hot, and dry as blazes. More fumaroles, less geysers and water visible than usual.
4) Excelsior is still the biggest hotpot ever...

Not hidiously important in the scheme of things, but I figured I'd report in.

dgavin
2010-Jul-26, 01:59 PM
jj, got any sources for that ifno? I'd be intrested in reading up on them.

jj_0001
2010-Jul-26, 04:32 PM
jj, got any sources for that ifno? I'd be intrested in reading up on them.

Well, the Canary Spring and Excelsior reports are visual, i.e. I looked at them.

The dryness of Norris ditto. It was drier than I've ever seen it. I have photos from 2000, 2004, 6, 8, and 10, and this was the driest Porcelain Basin I've ever seen.

I did confirm that in fact Echinus was just about empty, and it hasn't errupted since 2006? according to the ranger's tables. Last erruption for Steamboat was 2005, and it's just quietly venting a bit of steam. Dates from the ranger's observation book.

So, sorry, no web resources I know of.

dgavin
2010-Jul-28, 07:43 PM
Intresting news here. USGS is saying that the uplift of the caldera has ceased. This means we should be seeing the start of the deflation cycle soon.

danscope
2010-Jul-29, 12:20 AM
Let's hope that it is going to sleep some, and not just getting ready to clear it's throat a little. Yellow stone has a peculiar history and it doesn't have to obey any rules .

dgavin
2010-Sep-23, 07:10 PM
USGS YVO today announced the begining of Geyser/Hot Spring/HydroThermal Vent temperature remote monitoring though out the Norris Basin area. This includes one area thats been considered off limits due to the unpredictable high ground temerature variations.

Although the last stament on the 2010 swarm indicated no 'Visual Changes' occured to the geyser systems, evidently there was some noted variences, enough that someone decided the geyser systems needed full time monitoring via remote sensors.

Norris Basin is due east of the EQ swarm area about 15km.

danscope
2010-Sep-23, 07:54 PM
Nice that they will make an effort to monitor this area in detail , considering the risk with this enormous system.

Best regards,
Dan

dgavin
2010-Nov-23, 07:56 PM
Not much to report here lately, there have been the usual small swarms. Nothing in yet from the noris basin thermal monitoring.

However some of the GPS stations have been starting to show subsidence, so the delfaltionary period of Yellowstone Caldera might be starting.

BrentArsement
2010-Nov-24, 02:19 PM
Thanks dgavin.

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-27, 07:52 PM
When did Michio Kaku become a vulcanologist?

Couldn't CNN find someone closer to the field to interview? They may have well gone with Tommy Lee Jones.

Yellowstone volcano took a deep breath (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/01/27/am.kaku.volcano.cnn?hpt=C2) (CNN Video)

I don't like how he uses "as we know it" especially when they show the damage map not even reaching the Mississippi. For a 4:00 video, they could have explained it a little better.
And the part about a volcano wiping out the dinosaurs? Sure, they mention a metor coincided with the supervolcano, but I've never heard of it as a major factor.

I thought it was amusing that a reporter had to correct a physicist.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Feb-02, 04:13 PM
And the part about a volcano wiping out the dinosaurs? Sure, they mention a metor coincided with the supervolcano, but I've never heard of it as a major factor.
One hypothesis notes that what is now the Deccan Traps were antipodal to Chicxulub around the time of the impact and considers it possibility that focused shock waves from the impact fractured the antipodal crust (this is an effect that has observational evidence from other planets) triggering the major part of the super volcano eruption which resulted in the traps.

So the result was an impact combined with a super volcano for extra effect.

jlhredshift
2011-Feb-02, 04:21 PM
One hypothesis notes that what is now the Deccan Traps were antipodal to Chicxulub around the time of the impact and considers it possibility that focused shock waves from the impact fractured the antipodal crust (this is an effect that has observational evidence from other planets) triggering the major part of the super volcano eruption which resulted in the traps.

So the result was an impact combined with a super volcano for extra effect.

Yet, there are stratigraphic sections wherein an iridium layer is sandwiched between two eruption events. The Deccan traps precede and postdate the impact event.

Ivan Viehoff
2011-Feb-02, 04:36 PM
When did Michio Kaku become a vulcanologist?
...
I thought it was amusing that a reporter had to correct a physicist.

I wouldn't always categorise the subjects he is better known for popularising (multiverse, etc) as "physics" either.

dgavin
2011-May-31, 07:25 PM
Finaly some data.

It seems that the two large earthquake swarms at yellowstone late 2008 and early 2010, were a direct indicator of first the slow down of the uplift, and then the reversal into a subsidance.

The attached image from USGS/YVO shows the correlation of siesmic events, and the change from uplift to subsidence.

Enjoy!

Tensor
2011-May-31, 09:59 PM
As usual dgavin, excellent info. Thanks.

dgavin
2011-Jun-06, 06:44 PM
What is intresting here about the direct correlation, is that the reverse, earthquake swarms followed by a rapid increase in uplift, could potentially be an early warning sign for super volcanoe's. It's hard to say for sure but it is something I've been considering since seeing this plot.

Course it would be a long time before knowing if it could be a indicator, just not enough GPS data at supervolcaoes to say. And right now this is really the only supervolcanoe being actively monitoerd like this. Could be a century or more before there is enough GPS data correlated to EQ swarms to tell.

dgavin
2012-Feb-02, 08:00 PM
Seismicly Yellowstone has been very quiet since it's moved into the Subsidence phase. Only averaging around 30 minor quakes a month for the past half year or more. This is a lot lower then it's average of about 78-140 per month during the uplift phase.

Don't really know if that's a trend of it's subsidence phase or not, but it very well might be.

Ara Pacis
2012-Feb-03, 07:51 AM
Is that good or bad?

astromark
2012-Feb-03, 08:43 AM
I dare not suggest that quiet phase is upon you.. It looks like that.,

but from here in New Zealand we have a history of such that to make prediction of anything

might be a invitation for it all to go pear shaped...to go dam busters off the wall 'Ka Boom' !

I would study the GPS tracking of movement and uplift before I go out fishing... and keep the tank full.

The best tool in the box is information and knowledge to interpret it...

As a New Zealander we are a little anxious.. this paranoia could be useful.

dgavin
2012-Feb-03, 03:19 PM
Is that good or bad?

Keeping in mind that I'm a amateur volcanologist here.

I suspect this is part of it's normal cycle, Yellowstone has regular cycles of Uplift then subsidence. During the SUbsidence phase it likely will tend to be quieter, until it gets close to the point of uplift again. Somewhere close to that point the activity will increase again, possibly with a few swarms of quakes that signal the change of direction.

No this doesn't appear to be the quiet before the storm as Atromark seems to be woorying about.

There is less activity during subsidence because the stresses that built during the Uplift phase, are slowly being reversed during subsidence.

Hector
2012-Feb-18, 04:02 AM
Hello,
I haven't made an intro thread yet, but this was the thread Bing linked me to, thus my current interest.

I am not a geophysicist, but an astrophysicist and generally work as an independent contractor or at my home lab. Nowadays much is online or writing code. Some of that code writing and other number crunching has allowed me to predict to some reasonable accuracy the last 4 solar flares. Once I get top know this forum a bit I'll post a therad or to this one what I've been speculating about Yellowstone.

For now, the skinny is that it may have been errupting for the last 500 years, since the end of the "little ice age" and like any ground sshifting during freezing and thaw, this may have been the first fractures in the basin since the last erruption thought to have been 70,000 years ago. This is not to say the process is slow, but that it may escalate if another deep freeze or local "ice age" hits Wyoming. Should any more fractures occur, it could escalate to a runaway effect. I doubt if the basin would completely break up at one time, rather it would fracture and progressively sprout new geysers and bubblers, progressively creating new lakes and water tributories to the eastern states. How fast is difficult to say at this point. It may be possible to model such expansions and fracturing at a later time.

Hectro

dgavin
2012-Feb-18, 07:12 PM
Hector,

Welcome to BAUT.

If your ideas and specualtions are in the nature of something not in the mainstream yet, you'll probably want to post a new thread in Against the Mainstream forum area (and be prepare to defend your specualtions or theories there). BAUT is arranged into very logical forum categories. This forum is for exsiting and mainstream sceince and questions.

Most of the exsiting volcano and plate tectonic topics here are started are for reporting events, news, or science on them, while what you have may be something past new science so it probably deserves it's own topic.

Before you post your speculative information and research though, even if you don't use the ATM forum, you may want to read the rules for it and look at some of the threads there to see how the process works. It will give you some idea of what sort of questions people might be asking you, and what sorts of proffs people might demand.

Again welcome to BAUT!

Hector
2012-Feb-18, 10:59 PM
Hector,

Welcome to BAUT.

If your ideas and specualtions are in the nature of something not in the mainstream yet, you'll probably want to post a new thread in Against the Mainstream forum area (and be prepare to defend your specualtions or theories there). BAUT is arranged into very logical forum categories. This forum is for exsiting and mainstream sceince and questions.

Most of the exsiting volcano and plate tectonic topics here are started are for reporting events, news, or science on them, while what you have may be something past new science so it probably deserves it's own topic.

Before you post your speculative information and research though, even if you don't use the ATM forum, you may want to read the rules for it and look at some of the threads there to see how the process works. It will give you some idea of what sort of questions people might be asking you, and what sorts of proffs people might demand.Again welcome to BAUT!

No problem. Will do and thanks for the tip.

Pardon my being an old due, thus a bit naive to some new terms, but what are proffs?

Swift
2012-Feb-18, 11:09 PM
Pardon my being an old due, thus a bit naive to some new terms, but what are proffs?
I can't speak for dgavin, but I'm pretty sure it is a misspelling of "proofs"

dgavin
2012-Feb-18, 11:33 PM
Yes meant Proofs, thanks. Dang Dyslexia strikes on some of the oddest words.

neilzero
2012-Feb-19, 05:21 AM
I suppose if we removed massive amounts of geothermal energy from Yellowstone National park that would prolong the subsidence phase. Would continious extraction of one gigawatt from a depth of about one kilometer be significant or negligible. Will the subsidence phase likely last a decade or a century. An exra gigawatt or two would be a significant asset to our national electric grid. I think we should build several types of pilot plants as soon as possible and continue analysis in parallel. Sometimes further analysis looks suspiciously like stalling. I've heard the wells near Sacramento or Stockton, California are delivering declining amounts of geo energy. Neil