In your "conversations" with others in the FC thread that you've been participating in of late, you have made repeated references to Yellowstone and have alluded to some sort of imminent "event".
The only thing of substantial issue I'm aware of at Yellowstone is the caldera and the possibility or even likelihood of a supervolcano occurring in the future. From earlier readings, I've gleaned that approximately every 750,000 years (give or take a few hundred thou), the supervolcano that lies under Yellowstone blows its stack, which has substantial impact on all manner of life on the planet.
I've reviewed this site (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/) which makes reference to an earthquake swarm that occurred last month, but does not in any way indicate any substantial "event".
Are you in a position to talk toward this? What kind of information might you have that outweighs or negates this, admittedly, government information that doesn't indicate a problem? Note the Current Volcano Alert Level is "Normal".
I'm interested in the Yellowstone earthquakes and "super volcano" as well. I check the USGS site daily for earthquakes. Only because I am more interested in the Frenchman Mountain fault line.
I noticed that graph in Trip's signature, but wasn't quite sure why he had it there.
I've watched the yellowstone special on Discovery a few times and it's a pretty bleak outlook if something were to happen.
Never saw any specials about it, just read things here and there online.
Do libraries carry DVDs on such things?
*ALERT* Yellowstone Super volcano -- National Disaster Imminent.http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=86012281
This is not a drill.
In very recent days, the seismic activity of Yellowstone, America's supervolcano, has suddenly reached alarming levels.
The Evidence:
For the past week(s) numerous seismic sensors have shown seismic harmonics, but low level.
On the 25th of January, these seismic harmonics picked up and suddenly entered the realm of truly alarming.
Yellowstone-11jan25.jpg
In the above image, notice the harmonic "ringing" over the entire day. This is active evidence of "magma on the move" with the chambers actively filling.
There were also two quakes during the day:
2.2 at 04:51:04 UTC - depth 1 km, and
3.9 at 05:10:11 UTC - depth 0.1 km.
Other seismic signatures at distal sensors show evidence of remote dikes being filled by pressured induction.
Relevant Data:
University of Utah Yellowstone Seismic Graphs:
http://www.quake.utah.edu/helicorder/ytp_webi_1d.htm
Yellowstone Seismic Sensor Location Map:
http://www.seis.utah.edu/helicorder/yell_webi.htm
2004-2010 "Extraordinary Caldera Deformation Episode"
(geologic deformation map correlates to "Lake" in above Seismic Sensor Map)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/public...10/GRL2010.php
Other:
USGS "Live Internet Seismic Server"
http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/heli2.shtml
Additional Cause For Concern:
This morning I was in contact with a friend, who has regularly been in contact with a U of U geologist who is a close, personal and family friend of theirs, regarding the alarming upsurge at Yellowstone. Today, as a result of the new data, my contact did phone their close personal friend-geologist at U of U.
Instead of the normal discussion of the seismic data, he was greeted with a rather chilly response. "I can not discuss the current events going on over here".
To my own mind, this is strong evidence of an information lock-down by DHS to prevent panic.
Possibly Unrelated (and unconfirmed):
FEMA Requests Information on the Availability of 140 Million Packets of Food, Blankets, and Body Bags
140 Million is a very large portion of the American populace. Are we expecting a multi-pronged nuclear attack? Or perhaps more likely, "some" unprecedented natural disaster?
Disclaimer: There is every possibility that :IF: Yellowstone erupts, it will not be an explosive, supervolcano level event. However, there's no certainty as to that.
I'm interested in the Yellowstone earthquakes and "super volcano" as well. I check the USGS site daily for earthquakes. Only because I am more interested in the Frenchman Mountain fault line.
I noticed that graph in Trip's signature, but wasn't quite sure why he had it there.
That wasn't in his sig line, but an attachment. I do that sometimes because I loathe having to get into photobucket and do all of that mundane stuff to get a pic posted.
I'm sure they would. Try this summery of the show.
Discovery Channel (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/under/under.html)
That's what I meant. :)
Thanks. I'll look around. I am on a website that had a 10 minute video up from a History Channel show on the super volcano. I had no idea there were that many volcanoes there. But it/they last erupted 2.1 million years ago. I'm going to read some more. That stuff is addicting.
Just correcting... I misread the article. It said the largest eruption ever was 2.1 million years ago. And the last eruption was 640,000 years ago or so.
And, according to many scientists, we are overdue for another eruption. I can't remember the cycle they stated, but I THINK it was something like 632,000 years that Yellowstone was supposed to erupt. While I can't give much credence to their estimates, who knows??
The world is suppose to end in 2012... so maybe that's when the super volcano will erupt. ;)
Trip's thread at Hannity
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=86012281
Never saw any specials about it, just read things here and there online.
Do libraries carry DVDs on such things?
In your "conversations" with others in the FC thread that you've been participating in of late, you have made repeated references to Yellowstone and have alluded to some sort of imminent "event".
The only thing of substantial issue I'm aware of at Yellowstone is the caldera and the possibility or even likelihood of a supervolcano occurring in the future. From earlier readings, I've gleaned that approximately every 750,000 years (give or take a few hundred thou), the supervolcano that lies under Yellowstone blows its stack, which has substantial impact on all manner of life on the planet.
I've reviewed this site (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/) which makes reference to an earthquake swarm that occurred last month, but does not in any way indicate any substantial "event".
Are you in a position to talk toward this? What kind of information might you have that outweighs or negates this, admittedly, government information that doesn't indicate a problem? Note the Current Volcano Alert Level is "Normal".
Considering how utterly wrong this joker has been about everything else he claims expertise, I think he would qualify as the Dick Morris of CC.
So, the Government has really no measures in place to counteract a possible catastrophic natural event if it were to ever take place? there's no way to contain something like a volcanic eruption?
So, the Government has really no measures in place to counteract a possible catastrophic natural event if it were to ever take place? there's no way to contain something like a volcanic eruption?
Other than duck and cover? No. There is no containment of any type of natural disaster.
There's barely containment of regular, every day nature. Many, many years spent at sea has taught me just how insignificant we really are.
I don't know much, but this much I have learned: If the caldera under Yellowstone goes up, it'll likely be the last thing that many people will see.
As of the 25th of January there were widespread signatures that are outside the norm at Yellowstone and seen to extend well beyond the footprint of the park itself.
These most recent events are preceded by an extended period of extraordinary uplift, from 2004 to 2010 .
Yellowstone is the old caldera(s), two actually.
And given the evidences at hand, the current (subsurface) caldera is far outside the boundaries of the total of the previous two calderas, and well outside of the entirety of Yellowstone Park itself.
That's what's so scary, that it could be the end of civilization, this would have worldwide effects.
The University of Utah's Bob Smith, who is an expert in Yellowstone's volcanism told National Geographic, "It's an extraordinary uplift, because it covers such a large area and the rates are so high."
Smith went on to say, "At the beginning we were concerned it could be leading up to an eruption. Once we saw the magma was at a depth of ten kilometres, we weren't so concerned. If it had been at depths of two or three kilometre we'd have been a lot more concerned."
There you go. Yellowstone is pretty calm as giant caldera systems go. We have such a small record of the behavior of a "restless caldera" that this inflation at Yellowstone could very easily fall into the realm of normal, non-eruption-causing behavior. And if you ever worry, Yellowstone is also well-wired to see all the real time data, including earthquakes in the region and in the park, temperatures of hot springs, webcams, deformation within the caldera and hydrologic changes in the area. You would expect that if Yellowstone were headed towards an eruption, we would see lots of rapid inflation, lots of constant seismicity that gets shallower through time, a change in the temperature/composition of the hydrothermal systems and possibly even cracks forming in the land around the caldera. In other words, there will be lots of signs. So, the next time you see a doomdays article about Yellowstone, remember, calderas are busy places and the media loves its disasters.
I was under the impression that it was still under the park itself. Can you clarify?
ETA: Under Yellowstone Lake.
QuoteThere you go. Yellowstone is pretty calm as giant caldera systems go. We have such a small record of the behavior of a "restless caldera" that this inflation at Yellowstone could very easily fall into the realm of normal, non-eruption-causing behavior. And if you ever worry, Yellowstone is also well-wired to see all the real time data, including earthquakes in the region and in the park, temperatures of hot springs, webcams, deformation within the caldera and hydrologic changes in the area. You would expect that if Yellowstone were headed towards an eruption, we would see lots of rapid inflation, lots of constant seismicity that gets shallower through time, a change in the temperature/composition of the hydrothermal systems and possibly even cracks forming in the land around the caldera. In other words, there will be lots of signs. So, the next time you see a doomdays article about Yellowstone, remember, calderas are busy places and the media loves its disasters.http://bigthink.com/ideas/26641
I wish I could clarify with absolute certainty, however in early 2009 when they did a seismic refraction survey, the magma chamber then was 20% bigger than their largest estimation.
Since that 2009 mapping, there has been the extraordinary deformation that occurred, the barrage of 2,000+ earthquakes in January of 2000, and now these harmonic tremors with other signatures of fracturing rock, both from solid rock, and also hybrid signatures of rock that is semi-melted and/or surrounded by magma. And again this goes on well beyond the park into the Tetons on the east, and quite a lot further into Idaho and extending even 200 miles into nothern Utah.
This is ether a major expanded magma chamber, or the intrusion of one, or several adjacent magma chambers fed by the evident W/SW extension of the primary plume body itself.
While the mere appearance of harmonic tremors alone might not be enough to have a Geo team rush up to Yellowstone, the extension of those tremors outside the park, along with clear evidences of rock fracturing seismic events, is clear cause for immediate concern.
3-D model of 2009 Refraction Mapping of Magma Chamber "Magma Pocket 20% Larger Than Thought" (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091215-yellowstone-volcano-magma-plume-larger.html)
JAVA Animation of Magma chamber and Plume. (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/08/yellowstone/yellowstone-interactive)
(http://www.damninteresting.net/content/Yellowstone_Ash_Fall_Map.jpg)
The above image shows the ash outfall of the eruptions various million years ago. What we're looking at is, theoretically, an eruption capable of being the size of those two biggest eruptions, ........ combined,
So, if I understand you correctly, the current caldera could be joining with an adjacent magma chamber or it has grown larger than originally thought. Is that correct?
Read this...
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/toba2.html
Well that stinks!
The seismic signatures indicate that it has grown larger than originally thought, and that this may be either a much lager magma chamber and/or additional chamber offshoots adjacent to this location.
That wasn't in his sig line, but an attachment. I do that sometimes because I loathe having to get into photobucket and do all of that mundane stuff to get a pic posted.
What do all the colors represent?
There's barely containment of regular, every day nature. Many, many years spent at sea has taught me just how insignificant we really are.
It took you THAT long?!?!?!?!? I learned that on my first Med cruise when we hit 60 ft seas...... Damned dense-assed Blackshoe!!
It took you THAT long?!?!?!?!? I learned that on my first Med cruise when we hit 60 ft seas...... Damned dense-assed Blackshoe!!
Squids.
Yes, squids.
We swim around and shit on the Marine-life.
:-)
that's a security violation.
:rotf:
Security Violation
Security Violation
All hands stand fast
do not move about the ship
Marine Detachment Report to security post 1
-thats all I remember
I can promise you that I was one of those that was not stupid enough to move.
:-)
No, you Brownshoed cretin, I was merely making a point.
:tongue:
And i really don't want to hear an aircraft tender rider whine about heavy seas. Ride out 3 typhoons on a LST and get back to me, sissy-mary.
Bitchslap for being a carrier rider.
:fuelfire:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/26641
All of that is, and has been occurring.
A resident of UTAH on the further western edge of the state, has had his tapwater go from 9.0 to 11.1 alkalinity, inside 6 months. Additionally his irrigation well has gone from requiring his powered pump, to now being artesian, requiring no power whatsoever once it is opened.
That's one hell of a lot of hydrostatic head pressure in a month's time,, not to mention a major leap in pH.
Oh, and Bob Smith is indeed very concerned about the signs sine the 25th. While he's not at Yellowstone, others are and left there abruptly without any advanced indication given them.
A pH of 11.1 is at caustic/weak lye levels. Using that water for irrigation has to have a negative impact on plants and the soil.
Yeah, you'd think. He said he was only testing it with pH strips, and wasn't sure he had total confidence in the strips.
Squids.
Shut your pie hole, damned sea going Bellhop with guns
Yellowstone Caldera
Aggressive Deformation And Expansion
(http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp337/tjmccann/yellowstone/Yell-Def-thumb.jpg)
(click for Larger Image) (http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp337/tjmccann/yellowstone/Yell-Deformation.jpg)
The top portion of the above image shows the earth quakes at and around Yellowstone for last month, January 2011, and shows the depth of the focus of those quakes, as well as plotting their epicenters on both topographic and plan maps.
The lower portion of the above image shows the 2009 Satellite Interferometry survey, with the 2004-2010 "Extraordinary Caldera Deformation" (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2010/GRL2010.php) overlain on the map, seen at the north end of Lake Yellowstone.
Here is a graph displaying of that "Extraordinary Deformation" event (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2010/images/ChangFarrell_imLRG2.jpg) represented, along with the conspicuous quake numbers in January of 2010. This graph shows a six-year long deformation of the caldera, showing a lengthy and aggressive continuation of events on a geologic time-frame.
The above image shows the shallowing of quakes, with these being generally concentrated in the location of the magma chamber. Additionally the mapping show the extension of quakes to the W/NW of the park,which is consistent with quake mappings back through January 2010, and is following the same expansion shown by the Satellite Interferometry.
Overall, the image shows the aggressive expansion of the magma chamber outside the park, even continuing through last month, by those quakes outside the caldera, and even well beyond the park boundary itself.
The appearance of those Harmonic Tremors on January 25th 2011, at locations on the periphery of the magma chamber, and interpreted to be the rise of large volumes of magma through constrained fracture conduits, is consistent with the above data involving the expansion of the magma chamber. As such, the Harmonic Tremors of January 25th do indeed represent an alarming turn in the Yellowstone Park's volcanic status.
We will all die eventually. I don't want to die because a super volcano erupted though.
If it does, we probably will. You're safer than most because of where you live.
The ash from the other eruptions covered almost all of Nevada. I still don't think it will happen in our lifetimes, or even my grand-children or great grand-children's lifetime.
Those seismic plots could easily be fluid movement, Water, infact id be surprised if they weren't Water movement.
It is far more likely that those "harmonic" tremors are hydrothermal.
Any small earthquake can cause fluid movement over large areas, rock fractures underground allowing the movement of water to look suspiciously like harmonic tremors on seismographs.
I wish I felt the same. I'd pretty much time it anywhere from 6 months, to a year and a half, maybe two, unless the volcano just suddenly stops. Of course the fact that it's been going on aggressively since 2004 through 2010 with that "extraordinary caldera deformation" makes it look fairly... "persistent.
I was reading another forum that started a thread on Yellowstone on Jan 25th, with one poster addressing "Harmonic Tremors" thus:
I read that, and I didn't know whether to laugh, or cry.
Water just "moving around" doesn't make harmonic tremors. It takes a fluid being forced through confining conduits, like fractures or faults. The appearance of the repeated harmonic echo is a result of viscosity, pressure and conduit aperture.
In actuality it's more complicated than that and involves a fluid mechanics term, the Reynold's number, which incorporates flow velocity, some representation of the flow dimension (diameter), and the kinematic viscosity of the fluid, which for magma would vary highly as the viscosity changes with addition of silicious "melt". (I think I hear eyeballs bleeding too!)
Even the geysers, fumerals, vents and hotsprings at Yellowstone don't generate any Harmonic Termors. I know. I've looked at the seismic stations near them over periods of months.
Someone on Hannity recently tried to tell me that Harmonic Tremors might just as easily be 'microseisms' noise from storms somewhere on earth. (He's getting desperate.) The two signatures look nothing alike.
Harmonic Tremors are magma being injected toward the surface from depth... and they're not a good sign.
Hopefully, there will be just a bunch of mini-eruptions versus a major event.
I wish I felt the same. I'd pretty much time it anywhere from 6 months, to a year and a half, maybe two
Hopefully, but I'm inclined to agree with Trip and take his analysis as presented. Considering the past history of that caldera (mind you my knowledge is limited to the generalized summations that are put forth by the scientists involved; a veritable "n00b" as it were) and what sits beneath Yellowstone right now, I don't think an event will be anything less than an explosion that will make Krakatoa look like a M-80.
Might as well pull up some lawn chairs at the edge of Yellowstone Lake, pack a cooler, and get front row seats to an extinction level event.
Actually its past eruptions aren't all catastrophic, the three major approximately-600K interval caldera explosions were, but there have apparently been two substantial lava flows since the last one that actually cover much of the last caldera flow, most recently something like 150,000 years ago. There is a certain amount of hype in the way the volcano's history has been presented to dramatize only the most catasrophic events.
But really you can't do shit about it except move to the southern hemisphere anyway. Yellowstone may blow tomorrow, 100,000 years from now, or never again as a supervolcano, it's impossible to say. If you really have to have something to worry about, the asteroid Apophis is a much more predictably immediate problem.
This has all been interesting, from a mental masturbation perspective, but let me tell ya something:
- First; I was 9 years old and about 100 miles away when Mt. St. Helens erupted. The environmental scientists promised that it was going to be generations before the economy of Washington State recovered and the landscape looked like something other than the surface of the moon. They were wrong.
- Second; I live close enough to the Yellowstone Caldera now, that I don't know what my chances would be expected to be, but most likely not good. If God wants to take me out of this world, he knows where he can find me, there ain't nowhere I can run to and nothing I can do that will buy me as much as one more second on this mudball than he was already willing to give me, and until then, I've got work to do, a family to feed, and no time to waste circle-jerking on things that neither I, nor all of my elected representatives combined can do a damned thing to stop, slow down, change or sidestep.
That is all.
Hopefully, but I'm inclined to agree with Trip and take his analysis as presented. Considering the past history of that caldera (mind you my knowledge is limited to the generalized summations that are put forth by the scientists involved; a veritable "n00b" as it were) and what sits beneath Yellowstone right now, I don't think an event will be anything less than an explosion that will make Krakatoa look like a M-80.
Might as well pull up some lawn chairs at the edge of Yellowstone Lake, pack a cooler, and get front row seats to an extinction level event.
Wasp, ya know, if you keep this up, I may just send you a Valentine after all. ;)
I'm not certain it will erupt. It has erupted before in a non super volcano level. However if you look at my last image, the dispersion of quakes to depth, demarcates several areas of instability across the depth range, which will likely lead to one or two additional small eruptions, and these will 'unzip" the caldera to form one big eruption.
Originally, when I began looking at the data, I was worried that the "unzipping" event would occur in the northern area of the lake, given both the vertical rise, and lateral separation seen in the 2004-2010 "extraordinary caldera deformation" (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2010/images/ChangFarrell_imLRG1.jpg), but given the overall magma dispersal and quake-associated instabilities to depth, I no longer consider this to be the most "at risk" area.
Trip, if there is any one thing you could take away from interacting with me it is that I am brutally honest and will give credit where it is due no matter the source.
:-)
So, considering what you have posted (from the public arena of information) and what you know, where is the most "at risk" area? Where would the rock be the thinnest as to be the top of the "zipper"?
We all have our own litmus to how we evaluate honesty, which is commonly colored by our own personal bias (and that is not intending any particular slight to you in that recognition).
Besides, I'm not entirely objecting to being called :mental:. It too has its benefits.
Quite obviously, I don't have all the data, not even with my referenced connections, and I don't expect to have anything conspicuous in that regard anytime soon. (Rumor has it that 6 terabytes of data from this latest survey, has been parked on a dedicated, secured-access server; that's s-load of data!)
However going by what I do have, my "areas of concern" extend to the west-northwest from the existing caldera.(http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp337/tjmccann/yellowstone/Yell-Def-thumb2.jpg)
(click to enlarge) (http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp337/tjmccann/yellowstone/Yell-Deformation2.jpg)
In the above image, the plan maps clearly demarcate 3 areas of concern outside the caldera itself. with the primary area of concern obviously being centralized within that caldera footprint.
These 3 areas of concern outside the caldera are supported by the continuous indication of stratigraphic instability to depth at those locations, represented in the N/S and E/W transect cross-section mappings of the quakes.
The satellite interferometry image also supports these as areas of concern for instability.
What we lack is a current mapping of the magma chamber(s). Given all that has gone on, the magma dispersal above the plume, could be in a variety of different forms, some inherently more unstable than others.
Given all the enormous amount of seismic events and activity since the last mapping, it is no over-dramatization to say that I truly do dread what the current seismic mapping will indicate.
Trip, are you a geologist? Or do you study this stuff for a hobby?
In 1983 I was working with USGS in an intensive study of Hawaii's Kilauea eruption that began in Nov '82 after 20 years quietus, and has gone on consistently since. For almost 2 months I was sleeping in a cabin with 9 other entirely loco geologists, less than a quarter mile from that fissure eruption, which had fountains some 1,200 feet in the air.
QuoteQuite obviously, I don't have all the data, not even with my referenced connections, and I don't expect to have anything conspicuous in that regard anytime soon. (Rumor has it that 6 terabytes of data from this latest survey, has been parked on a dedicated, secured-access server; that's s-load of data!)
Indeed. Makes one wonder what is on it, yes?
Okay, out of the 3 "hotspots" on the map, which one has the least amount of rock over the magma? It would seem that the thinnest point would be the weakest and would be the top of the zipper to open up the entire caldera. Please bear in mind that I am only trying to follow what you have presented in your own most likely scenario.
Or am I missing something entirely, such as those three spots could be filling up with magma causing the harmonic tremors you have referenced?
What have you done since then?
This is a big problem; could mean no more pic-a-nic baskets.
------------------------
I looked up some "what if Yellowstone mega-erupts" sites; I mean I wanted to get an idea of how much devastation we'd be looking at. It's pretty frightening.
Trip, isn't Yellowstone erupting--I mean the big one--just a matter of when, not if?
Trip, could this somehow be related to the Mayan Calendar?
Trip, could this somehow be related to the Mayan Calendar?
The Mayan Calendar says the world is supposed to end in 2012 possibly due to solar extinction.
ETA: I don't know if it's possible for a volcanic eruption to cause something like this.
"Both the Hopis and Mayans recognize that we are approaching the end of a World Age... In both cases, however, the Hopi and Mayan elders do not prophesy that everything will come to an end. Rather, this is a time of transition from one World Age into another. The message they give concerns our making a choice of how we enter the future ahead. Our moving through with either resistance or acceptance will determine whether the transition will happen with cataclysmic changes or gradual peace and tranquility. The same theme can be found reflected in the prophecies of many other Native American visionaries from Black Elk to Sun Bear." — Joseph Robert Jochmanshttp://www.adishakti.org/mayan_end_times_prophecy_12-21-2012.htm
I'm more curious to what the Mayan Calendar is related to, if anything at all.
Is there a correlation to planet-wide changes to someting outside our planet, and perhaps even beyond our own sun, causing it's activity lately?
I don't know. Geologists don't even really have a clue why the earth reverses its magnetic poles so regularly.
This is heavily into the realm of speculation.
But there's an old "Hyperdimensional Theory" by one R. C. Hoagland which makes me think sometimes.
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/hyper/s_planeng2.gif)
The above graph is allegedly of each body's "total angular momentum" (body and satellites) vs the total amount of internal energy each object radiates to space. The graph was supposedly inspired by planets, such as Jupiter, which radiate in the infrared in excess of any absorption, not just by reflected light.
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/hyper/s_heat-j.jpg) (http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/hyper/s_jup-ir.jpg)
Hoagland explains the offset of the Sun from linearity being the result of our not having accounted for all the bodies acting as satellites around the sun [mysterious Planet X]. True to form, Hoagland goes even further out on a limb explaining that solar radiation is not directly the result of nuclear reaction, with this being only a byproduct of radiative angular momentum energies - claiming insufficient neutrino emission from fusion as support.
Astronomers say that most solar systems have twin suns. Evidently we got short changed in that regard, but what if not? What if our sun is a red dwarf that never ignited and it has been on an extended orbit on a high angle to our ecliptic? Probably not. However the existence of such a body would account for the sun's missing angular momentum, evident in the top graph. It does make one wonder, however there's no hard evidence to take us from pseudo-science to bona fide science.
There certainly are a lot of names for this possible heavenly body going back through ancient cultures, inclusive of
Wormwood! (Revelation)
Nemesis!
The Red Dragon!
The Winged Disk!
The Planet of Crossing!
and Nibiru.(http://samzodiac2.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/nibiru.jpg)
What if such a body's passing through the plane of our ecliptic, interfered with earth's geomagnetic dipole moment (our polar magnetism), reversing it? Planets do rotate the solar system on regular intervals, which might account for the regular intervals behind the magnetic reversals.
Hoagland's "Hyperdimensional Physics" (http://)
Trip, I just want to make sure; didn't you mean what if Jupiter is a red dwarf that never ignited? Obviously Sol did ignite, as a yellow dwarf.
Actually the fundamental of this 'hypothesis", which is none of my making, is that there is another body, with more mass than Jupiter, that did not ignite and is on a much larger period oribit than Jupiter, and not in the plane of the ecliptic, as Jupiter is. That body would be our sun's twin.
Jupiter's IR radiance in excess of absorption, is claimed (by some) to be a result of that body's cumulative angular momentum energies (inclusive of its moons)
Dumb it down for me please.
Wouldn`t something like that be easily detected by gravitational pull or other means such as occluding distant stars?
I know not your assertion but seems like it should be easily proved or debunked.
Dumb it down for me please.
Wouldn`t something like that be easily detected by gravitational pull or other means such as occluding distant stars?
I know not your assertion but seems like it should be easily proved or debunked.
Such as perturbations in planetary orbits?
Here's a 1983 article: Washington Post: Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered! (http://planet-x.150m.com/washpost.html)
or in 2008: Scientists Discovery Solar System's Mystery "Planet X" (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/541620/Scientists%20discover%20solar%20system)
Video: Interview of Dr Robert S Harrington, U.S. Naval Observatory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L97w6DQt9Jk)
Or a video by 2012 Doomsdayers: "2012 : How To Survive" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU7urU3WpEo)
"Bison captured as they attempt to migrate
out of Yellowstone National Park"
Feb 2, 2011.
They probably left because of the weather and cold... unable to find enough food. I think the bison migrating and trying to link this to the earthquakes is looking too far into things.
I checked the USGS again this morning, and it doesn't look like much of anything is going on there. I forgot how to look at earthquakes in a single area over week or 30 days though.
You're looking for just quakes. Volcanoes going off aren't really about quakes at all, though they do happen. Things are not currently as calm as you imagine.
I've a friend who lives in Casper, Wyoming. His two dogs are repeatedly 'on him', glued to him lately. Generally a couple hours before a quake, they're regular alarms.
This works for other animals too.
One geologist, Jim Berkland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Berkland), actually looks over the "lost pet' sections of the newspapers and uses those to predict earthquakes. He actually predictated a quake one day before the 1989 World Series in San Francisco.
As I indicated in my previous post, the mass migration from Yellowstone in 2008, was no coincidence. December and January were periods of massive uplift.
Is it true that the next caldera-forming eruption of Yellowstone is overdue?
No. First of all, one cannot present recurrence intervals based on only two values. It would be statistically meaningless. But for those who insist... let's do the arithmetic. The three eruptions occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 million and 0.64 million years ago. The two intervals are thus 0.8 and 0.66 million years, averaging to a 0.73 million-year interval. Again, the last eruption was 0.64 million years ago, implying that we are still about 90,000 years away from the time when we might consider calling Yellowstone overdue for another caldera-forming eruption. Nevertheless, we cannot discount the possibility of another such eruption occurring some time in the future, given Yellowstone's volcanic history and the continued presence of magma beneath the Yellowstone caldera.
I'm not getting too worried about Yellowstone:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/faqsfactivity.html
I read this on MSNBC (after doing a web search about the volcano at Yellowstone)
Not sure if we can copy & paste parts of the story, but here is the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41494177/ns/technology_and_science-science/
A volcanologist said that a rising caldera doesn't mean an eruption is on the way.
|
|
The fact is there is a rigid and vigorously pursued lock-down on information about Yellowstone right now from branches of government. I could state widespread details showing the extraordinary levels to which this lock-down is being pursued, and these are nothing short of chilling, but in doing so I would be divulging entirely too much information involving my insider contacts.
Instead, what has occurred, is an even greater lock-down on information, taken to extreme levels which should make every one of us extremely nervous, if we have any sense about us at all.
God's honest truth and no insult, I bet this has to be killing you. I can tell by your tone that you know something and are ready to scream. I applaud you for being able to keep a lid on it.
Extremely nervous about what? An impending eruption or little lord hussein playing commie?
Yeah, it is killing me to some degree. However I recognize that even if said, the evidence to others would only be anecdotal and hearsay, and they'd not take much from it. Ultimately the only thing that will demonstrate the truth to this is an eruption, and I'd really rather not see that happen.
The eruption would only be part of the problem. There would be no better excuse for these fascists to institute martial law and a long-term suspension of the Constitution. It also wouldn't help the dollar nor the stock market any either. And the Federal deficit? ... it would blow as high as the eruption! It would end the country as we know it, and some would view the overall collapse as an opportunity to advance their agenda.
Trip - What's the difference between harmonic tremors and earthquakes?
I forgot to ask this question yesterday when I was speaking of earthquakes in the Yellowstone area.
SEISMOGRAM IMAGE: DEC 30, 2009, YSB Harmonic Tremors (http://www.isthisthingon.org/Yellowstone/wrapper.php?file=Uuss.YSB_EHZ_WY_01.2009123000.gif)
If Yellowstone was to erupt, it would be biggest disaster since Toba. When does Yellowston erupt? It could be tomorrow or 10 millions years from now.
Trip, did you know there were two earthquakes in Yellowstone this weekend? A 3.5 and a 4.2?
Was there?
According to the Earthquake app on the ipad. I didn't see anything on the USGS site, which is a bit disturbing.
If Yellowstone was to erupt, it would be biggest disaster since Toba. When does Yellowston erupt? It could be tomorrow or 10 millions years from now.
According to the Earthquake app on the ipad. I didn't see anything on the USGS site, which is a bit disturbing.
There have been registers of a whole bunch of quakes, most very shallow and smaller, with their epicenter in or around Yellowstone this weekend.. and the vast majority of them are just disappearing from the database. Some people are following them on Hannity.
I'm not painting any sort of conspiracy here, but it sure looks like a lot more than normal are disappearing.
Hey Trip, Mount St. Helen had a 4.3 earthquake about an hour ago.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/uw02141835.php
Good eye, EC! You beat me to the 'punch' here.
I actually got a phone call from a friend living in the Northwest just a bit ago, to inform me of this, and I did a screen shot of that data.
Curiously an unusual amount of quake activity at Mt St Helens, and also a minor quake at Mt Hood.
Screen Shot of the above data (http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp337/tjmccann/yellowstone/EQs-Washington21411.jpg)
Would you like for me to give you the lat/long, date and time? It would have to be later this evening.
Unless we've got more than just quakes being dropped, as in a disproportionately high number in YS, then there's likely a reasonable 'cause' for USGS doing so.
I'm not to the point of trying to prove any of that, and not even sure anything could be proved.
The significance then of all these sudden quakes? and can the San Andreas Fault start rumbling?
I was in the PI shortly after Pinatubo erupted, did the evacuation of AF dependents to Cebu City. Olongapo and the base were unrecognizable.
The only eruption I can lay claim to being around was Hawaii, a VEI of "O".
That tends to limit my bragging rights, but i can live with that. :lmao:
Eh, it's all good. I wasn't around for the first eruption and don't know if I would have wanted to considering how much damage it did.
:-)
We waited well out to sea for it to be (for the most part) over until we went in. It was kind of interesting to see another minor eruption after we got back from Cebu City. I have pictures somewhere at the house...
The biggest thing I remember was the smell. It smelled very metallic, like iron left in the summer sun. There was about 8 inches or so of volcanic ash all over everything and there was a haze in the air.
Did they keep you in respirators or masks? that ash is nasty stuff.
No, they did not. By the time we arrived inport, the volcano had subsided and a typhoon had blown through. The whole time we were there, the ash that was on the ground was wet. I am assuming that is the reason we weren't given any type of mask; although I did wonder why we were running around with no respiratory gear.
The haze wasn't very thick, but it was noticeable.
ETA: Found a link to the ship's cruisebook. There are some pictures (one in particular of the later eruption that I was talking about) of the base, town, and evacuation.
http://navysite.de/cruisebooks/lsd45-91/index_014.htm
Those are some good pics.
I'm guessing the food rituals (pies) are to appease the volcano Gods.
So, the Government has really no measures in place to counteract a possible catastrophic natural event if it were to ever take place? there's no way to contain something like a volcanic eruption?
No, they did not. By the time we arrived inport, the volcano had subsided and a typhoon had blown through. The whole time we were there, the ash that was on the ground was wet. I am assuming that is the reason we weren't given any type of mask; although I did wonder why we were running around with no respiratory gear.
The haze wasn't very thick, but it was noticeable.
ETA: Found a link to the ship's cruisebook. There are some pictures (one in particular of the later eruption that I was talking about) of the base, town, and evacuation.
http://navysite.de/cruisebooks/lsd45-91/index_014.htm
Trip, anything new?
Is that the Prairie in the background of the second picture?
Any day now...... it's happening. :yawn:
Is that the Prairie in the background of the second picture?
I have a feeling this link may be relevant
Trip??????
(http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/yellowstone-the-anatomy-of-a-supposed-volcanic-conspiracy/)
Should I get volcano insurance?
(http://www.damninteresting.net/content/Yellowstone_Ash_Fall_Map.jpg)
Incidentally you might note that Houston, Texas, where the Yellowstone data and personnel have all be curiously relocated, is right on the margin of the southern lobe of that of that historic ash fallout.
I question whether this is a matter of coincidence... but I'm sure everyone will reach their own conclusions based on their preconceptions.
Ummm...no it's not.
(http://www.tetonwyo.org/em/docs/images/yellowstone_ash_cover.jpg)
http://www.tetonwyo.org/em/docs/images/yellowstone_ash_cover.jpg
Unless of course you now want to sugges that somehow the Teton County Emergency Management Agency is in on the "conspiracy".
I feel sure you were looking in the mirror when you typed that.
The policy covers all departmental employees when they engage in, supervise or manage scientific activities, analyze and/or publicly communicate information resulting from scientific activities, or use this information or analyses in making agency policy, management or regulatory decisions. It also covers all contractors, cooperators, partners, volunteers, and permitees who assist with scientific activities.
That's not still the "periphery" of the ash falllout? I'm quite certain that it is.
No you moron...the "periphery" is out in the Gulf of Mexico...not even the Houston Ship Channel is close to the edge of the ash zone in that map.
That map clearly contradicts your conspiracy that USGS personnell have been moved to a safer location.
Thank you for once again proving that you will lash out at anyone and defy anything resembling logic or a difference of opinion to continue to convine yourself you're the smartest guy in the room.
pe·riph·er·y   /pəˈrɪfəri/ Show Spelled[puh-rif-uh-ree] Show IPA
noun, plural pe·riph·er·ies.
1. the external boundary of any surface or area.
Shreveport , La. and Marshall, Texas are closer to the periphery of the ash boundary than Houston.
(And good luck finding a significant university system in Texas, south of Houston.)
"Periphery" actually means "the outer limits or edge of an area or object." I am pretty sure that anyone can recognize that Houston, Texas is at the "outer limits"
I'm sure the folks with Texas A&M would have an issue with the above statement.
http://www.tamucc.edu/
http://www.tamuk.edu/
http://www.tamiu.edu/
And the University of Texas would be dismayed with your statement as well Chip.
http://www.utsystem.edu/institutions/university-texas-pan-american
http://www.utsystem.edu/institutions/university-texas-medical-branch-galveston
http://www.utsystem.edu/institutions/university-texas-brownsville
All of those are part of the University of Texas and Texas A&M system. Anyone with a pulse considers those two universities "significant".
No. Again you're wrong. Houston is significantly inland from what would be considered the "outer limits" on the map I posted. Galveston is closer to being on the "periphery" by your definition.
See Drip...this is what happens when you start spouting off consipracy theories and making patently false statements about places you've obviously never been to...to people who are from the state in which you're making the statements about.
YOU end up looking like more of a foolish assclown than you already are.
Wow, you are one desperate guy. We're not talking about "significant university basket weaving"
What we're talkign about is having a significant geosciences department (http://www.geosc.uh.edu/department-research/index.php), and one involved even with post-graduate programs. Ya know geosciences, geology, volcanoes?
The closest Brownsville comes is the "Chemistry and Environmental Sciences" department. They have two undergrad courses vaguely attached to geology, one being oceanography, and the other being "physical geology". That obviously doesn't cut it ( I am talking about "obvious" to me, but apparently not to you)
I am beyond amused that you would go off and pull those references and believe you're actually making a relevant argument. (Next thing we'll do is have a discussion about "significant", I'm sure).
"OH, if ONLY Houston had been built out to sea, like Atlantis, I might be correct!" :rotf:
Wingnut, "periphery" does not mean "outside" the boundary, but at the outer edges, and it is not a precise term that anyone but a mental midget would choose to split hairs over. Houston is clearly on the periphery of the Lava Creek eruption
Once again, this has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy, but rather facts. I've not asserted any conspiracy whatsoever, and have only indicated that Houston, Texas is a strange place to relocate those studying Yellowstone volcanism.
Seriously, you should go back to fishing for navel lint. This is just making you look desperate to make a point, even at the expense of your own dignity...
This folks...is classic desperation from a troll who has backed itself into a corner it can't get out of.
Hahaahaahaa!
"backed into a corner" over parsing of "periphery"
and what constitutes a reasonably equipped geology institution for PhDs
You just cannot resist the ad hominem attacks can you? In the absence of any substance, just fling anything in hopes that it sticks.
TRG you would be much better served doing this :banghead:
"OH, if ONLY Houston had been built out to sea, like Atlantis, I might be correct!"
You do realize that the channel that connects the cith of Houston to the Gulf of Mexico is 50 mile long dont you?
Don't you Chip?
You don't recognize tongue-in-cheek any more so than you do "periphery".
This is just ... sad.
I recognize backpeddle and spin...I'm watching you do it now Chip.
THAT is sad.
I dont have to back-peddle on the fact that Houston is located on the periphery of the lobate ashflow from Yellowstone's Lava Creek eruption..
But you keep digging, desperately hoping to find that one bone. "It's gotta be here somewhere!" :lmao:
Case in point. You're picking nits on the difference in opinion on periphery to hide the fact that your assertion that there was some sinister plot in why USGS personnel were moved to Houston was just plain wrong. The insinuation you made was it was done to get them out of some alleged danger zone.
The map I posted from the Teton County Wyoming Emergency Management Agency shows they wouldn't be out of danger.
So then you shifted to the statement of "I doubt there is a significant university system south of Houston".
Until I showed you that quite the opposite was true.
Not content with being wrong or admitting your error...you had to throw out the red herring of not having a competent geo physics department or some such nonesense.
Or come back with meaningless invesctive and personal attacks on my intelligence...place of employment or some such rubbish while claiming that by somehow showing and exposing the holes in your BS claim...I'm somehow attacking you.
Please...continue on.
That map, whether more accurate, or not, shows ash fall, but not significant amounts, as the margins of that ashfall are far removed from from yellowstone itself, and once again, on the periphery of the fallout. Being "out of danger" does not mean being absolutely free of previous ash fallout. The periphery fallout is insignificant, intermittent, and not likely to pose any real threat to inhalation or building collapse.
Beyond that, you're looking at the previous, historic ash fall, which is dependent upon prevailing winds at the TIME of the eruption. If you're gaging "danger" by known ash outflow from previous HISTORY, you're fabricating a litmus test that is pure nonsense, and has no absolute bearing on future ash fall. You've no idea in what direction the prevailing winds will trend in during a current eruption, or if the jetstream now even resembles what was present 640,000 years ago!
A rough estimate of previous ashfalls from Yellowstone's super eruptions is more than sufficient to establish a suitable command and control center, or safe scientific observation point.
You're picking nits here, but I don't have to do so to recognize that Houston is, in fact, on the periphery of the Yellowstone Lava Creek eruption.
I'm pretty certain that the PhD geologists associated with Yellowstone are more interested in establishing a new association with university having existing graduate studies in geology, and available equipment, rather than one with basket weaving, or even undergrad oceanography.
Why would this be such a mystery to you? When was the last time you had a class in applied science? 9th grade, if even then? Relevance matters.
I don't have to address your intelligence; you do fine undressing it on your own.
The policy covers all departmental employees when they engage in, supervise or manage scientific activities, analyze and/or publicly communicate information resulting from scientific activities, or use this information or analyses in making agency policy, management or regulatory decisions. It also covers all contractors, cooperators, partners, volunteers, and permitees who assist with scientific activities.
Let's keep it on topic folks, and confined to the science........
As an aside, Trips citation of this:
It is exactly this document that has recently been at the center of the NASA/AGW discussions recently seen in the media, and a large group of scientists and engineers that are former NASA employees taking issue with this policy.
It's not a conspiracy when government agencies typically engaged in scientific research are instructed to confine their results to conformation with accepted political parameters..........
Science and politics don't mix.........
doc
Never use 50 words when 10,000 will do.
Note the "zipper" has rotated 90 deg and is about 100 miles long...
crustal deformation and tectonic stresses are placing a huge strain in this one location. I'm beginning to think that there are other factors at work here and the triggers for an eruption are much more than just those that a strata volcano have..
That's for damn sure.
Stratovolcanoes are commonly fed by the melt coming off of plate subduction, resulting in small scale dike and magma chamber, which are periodically fed by the subduction. The scale of the snake river plume and the amount of magma, dwarfs stratovolcanoes, and this is why the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory Hazard Response Protocols, based on stratovolcano time-scales, is so inadequate.
So where are we now in all this? I haven't heard anything since last year.
just getting a good look now bally.. it appears things have changed dramatically in the last 6 months. the original weak spot has dissipated and a new one taken its place. the new one is 10X the size of the original... and the weak "zipper" lengthened and directional change...things are interesting and it will take a few days to fully look into it.
:tongue:
I was noticing the rise is pretty consistent over about a 100 mile in diameter circle. this would be consistent with a rather large build up under the surface of magma.. not steam as that would be localized to a very small area as with the original assessment by YVO. its no wonder they have become deathly silent... the silence is deafening..
OK, so in English (LOL) is that good or bad news?
I think part of the problem is that the Snake River plume itself has had a "plateau" diverge to the west from its shallowest peak, and this results in a greater surface area effected, not to mention further opportunity for magma feed upwards. As a result, it's conceivable that there may be more than just the one magma chamber located roughly in the center of the park caldera.
(Magma "chambers" are much smaller and more shallow, than the "plume" itself, which is what is represented in the image below.)
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/116/cache/yellowstone-magma-plume_11653_600x450.jpg)
Source (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091215-yellowstone-volcano-magma-plume-larger.html)
If an eruption is minor can we assume damage would be minimal? or does it not matter at all, any size eruption would be dangerous?
If an eruption is minor can we assume damage would be minimal? or does it not matter at all, any size eruption would be dangerous?
Generally, the nature of the eruption is determined by the composition of the melt in the magma chamber (not the plume itself). If that chamber has a high sialic (silica and aluminum) continental crust melt, generally 50% and above, then it will likely be an explosive eruption.
The scale of the eruption itself, not explosivity, is based on the amount of eruptible magma itself, which increases at a greater rate as the surface area of the chamber(s).
The make up of the melt can be guess-timated by seismic refraction surveys, which we know they've been doing. While there were statements of the melt composition some years ago, there really has not been any more recent statement at all... which is somewhat disturbing.
Is it that "Scientific Integrity" at work? Who knows... This is yet another reason why scientists should be able to speak freely, outside of any government political constraints.
there have been two surveys in the last year.. yet nothing is being published. scientific chatter has stopped. there is no open discussion at all. its like everyone is scared of telling the truth..
if there is truly nothing going on and no concern than the "chatter" would reinforce that belief.. the silence lends itself to distrust... climate-gate just reinforced the distrust and now the Obama EO shoves it into the "your hiding stuff" realm..
it just dawned on me that hiding stuff is what Climate scientists did and wanted hid... this EO allows their bad behavior ro go unchecked and un corrected...
Trip, I was listening to a podcast of a show the other day, they were talking though about Astrology and the planets being aligned, they made mention of the planets being aligned this week as they were in 1906 when the San Francisco Earthquake occurred, they also said the next couple of years are going to have heavy Earthquake activity, particularly off Indonesia and the Western part of the US. Do the alignment of the Planets have anything to do with this at all?
As far back as the 1940s, the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) hired John Nelson, an electrical engineer, in an attempt to improve short-wave radio communications around the Earth. Radio transmissions had been observed to be more reliable in the "lulls" in between solar activity associated with "peak" sunspot years. Using a solar observatory he built on the roof of a New York skyscraper, Nelson was able to correlated this rising and falling radio interference with not only the sunspot cycle, but with the motions of the major planets of the solar system. Using only on the planetary positions of the planets, Nelson was able to successfully predict sunspots, solar flares and geomagnetic storms.
More recent studies have tied volcanic flow rate with the position of the moon.
I would not be surprised if tectonic events and volcanism had some relative tie with planetary orientation.
Actually they made a brief comment about the increase in sun spots, but they didn't delve into it.
Incidentally, I find your "Any Republican/Rubio 2012" signature graphic sort of disturbing. I could not vote for that ticket because Rubio is aboard, and unqualified to hold office as his parents were not citizens of the United States upon his birth, and therefore he cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States.
Rubio also supports DREAM Act style legislation.
That puts him in the "hell no" category.
We'll agree to disagree.
What are you disagreeing on though? I think Rubio is very likable, however I think we should not create false idols any more than the Democrats did with Obama. The definition of natural born is the only one recognized by the Supreme Court in its entire history, and Rubio's desire for a Dream Act facsimile, in deference to his own origin, is in disregard for this country itself, and is further cause to question his birth status.
We disagree on the interpretation of natural born citizen.
We disagree on the interpretation of natural born citizen.
Trip, I was listening to a podcast of a show the other day, they were talking though about Astrology and the planets being aligned, they made mention of the planets being aligned this week as they were in 1906 when the San Francisco Earthquake occurred, they also said the next couple of years are going to have heavy Earthquake activity, particularly off Indonesia and the Western part of the US. Do the alignment of the Planets have anything to do with this at all?
What are the ramifications if a large Volcano really blows? aside from local damage what were the long term effects of Mt. St. Helens to the rest of the US and the world? if any.
The Long Valley caldera area has been having a swarm of earthquakes lately. What do you say about that? Any information? From what I have read, the Long Valley caldera is a lot smaller than Yellowstone, but has had some uprising growth. Just curious.
I've been to Devil's Tower before. LOVED IT there. It was a short family vacation after visiting some family in South Dakota. Gorgeous. I want to go back now that I am older and able to appreciate it even more.Great place to BASE jump from.
The Long Valley caldera area has been having a swarm of earthquakes lately. What do you say about that? Any information? From what I have read, the Long Valley caldera is a lot smaller than Yellowstone, but has had some uprising growth. Just curious.
This subject is actually really scary to think about.
Nothing anyone can do will change things. Just go on with your life.
Qué será, será.
At the cost of 98 cents for a particulate filtration mask, an individual is able to breathe during an ashfall and not suffer the the slow, tortuous death of Maries's-like disease from ash inhalation. And for the expense of a couple more bucks for a jury rigged cheesecloth filtration on vehicles air intake, anyone in the hazard zone could drive and survive beyond the serious eruption and ashfall.
Yet there is no proactive plan whatsoever from our government.
I'm more concerned over the Long Valley caldera since it's kind of in my backyard. I'm in Las Vegas, NV. I'm sure the ash fall would be oh-so-wonderful near us.
Initially that would.. just as Yellowstone would make me have a bad day.. (I live less than 200 miles from it) that said, its the long term affects of a prolonged eruption which will kill millions.. The initial eruption will kill those close. The ash and fall out those within 2-5 hundred miles will be greatly affected. Its the sulfur dioxide and particulate matter high in the atmosphere that will rapidly cool the planet. Then its a matter of who prepared for a long period of reduced food growing seasons who will survive.
The actual eruption will be minor in comparison to the long term problems...
(http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/sock-puppet.jpg)
Trip,you have been told to knock that crap off in this forum by two different staff members...now three.
It would be wise that you listen.
Discussions of your Constitutional theories,do not do it in Science Club.
I repeat, Billy_Bob, what do we do (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,72112.msg864710.html#msg864710)? Why are you still living in the initial kill zone if all signs are pointing at a massive eruption in the near future?
What the USGS is saying publicly obviously does not jibe with what you and Trip know to be true.
Are you guys still working from the two different (public and actual) data sets?
That's not true actually. What the USGS is saying, and has been saying, does jibe with what BB and I have said. We know that there has been an ongoing escalation of Yellowstone volcanism since 2003, which has involved continuing uplift, and quake swarms, which even the USGS have indicated are the result of magma migration, and not hydrothermal activity.
What the USGS has not said is the full extent of their concern, and they have an obligation to not speak their concerns, as we've indicated in this thread, due to the political filtration of statements through the "Scientific Integrity" policy.
Nonetheless, what USGS has said publicly does indeed "jibe with" what BB and I have said.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but the data BB and I have access to is obviously less than what USGS itself has.
You seem to want to imply that BB and I are reaching conclusions that differ from the USGS geologists. This is untrue.
In fact, at the onset, we went and corroborated our concerns with USGS geologists attached to Yellowstone, without any absolute conclusions yet made by us, because we knew we didn't have all the relevant information to do so. Our concerns and beliefs were subsequently validated, and continue to be so, by the continuing heightened state of alarm regarding YS, even involving relocation of the data and those geologists themselves to a more remote location, not to mention the continuing GPS displacement, and regional quake activity.
Now, wait a minute, you said in the second paragraph that the USGS has not stated the full extent of their concerns publicly. If that is the case, wouldn't it be true that what they (USGS) are saying does not exactly line up with what you and Billy_Bob are saying?
No, that is not what I am saying at all. You have been very clear, for well over a year now, that the USGS is not being forthcoming about what is going on and you had an indirect contact through a friend that said public updates were off the table. That, to me, implies that they are not putting forth a clear picture and they are withholding more damning data. Am I wrong?
So, was your indirect contact able to tell you more without putting themselves at personal risk? Is the USGS putting out more data but not really saying anything about it?
Damn it. I misplaced my tinfoil hat again!
:popcorn:
No, because evertying they've specifically said about Yellowstone, is incorporated in what we've indicated.
They are not putting forth their accurate or full appraisal of what is going on.
'Data' in and of itself is often useless. Each analyticalmethods must be reduce the data to some usable form to enable its use. There is also other information and newer sources of information that are not being represented. Of itself, this is not necessarily indicative of a lock-down because the public would have no use for much of the data, nor any means to interpret it, having no knowledge of the particular survey parameters.
"Transparency" can quickly become a relative thing. Overall the reduction and analysis of the data are what have signicance to the public.
They are getting more data, by various means, and we're not getting thorough appraisals of that data by public channels. For instance they did at least 2 direct seismic refraction surveys, and we really have not heard the implication of those surveys, in the form of tomographic mappings, and especially not in regard to an update on the chamber melt constituency.
We also know that since our contact received a reprimand with his job threatened, and the relocation to Houston, we have not heard anything at all by that means. A decades long familial friendship has been discarded in order to maintain absolute silence.
So the USGS is not putting forth all of the data they normally do? You don't think they're hiding anything or watering down what they put out to the public, do you?
I remember a seismic refraction survey being done last year (January), have they released the findings from that? If there is something in the public domain, is it accurate in your opinion?
Why did that happen? Was it for talking to you and Billy_Bob?
.......Shortly thereafter both BB and myself had our IP's banned on the USGS site, for a period of a week plus. I managed to bypass my IP ban. However BB contacted the site webmaster directly, who had "no idea" why the IP bans were instituted, recognizing that the there had been no inappropriate use of the site, and therefore removed those IP bans.
I'm a geologist and geophysicist. What are you? See, "tinfoil" doesn't apply when people are actually doing good science, and that science is being relied upon. The only thing at play here is your own fear of the facts.
Earlier in this thread TVDoc and I had an exchange regarding the corruption of the scientific process (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,54746.msg847604.html#msg847604), as applied to NASA, Climate science, and the geosciences of Yellowstone. This is an examination of the Yellowstone Hazard Response Protocols that furthers that discussion.
What I find stunning is the absolute obtuse nature some here have to things they do not understand.
I have spent many years watching Yellowstone, learning about it, watching changes, watching events....
You all can keep your tinfoil... your gonna need it to survive when it goes...
I'm sure the all knowing sock puppet who posted above will tell you...http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,54746.0/msg,862752.html
Do not misconstrue what many regard as hyperbole,doomsday predictions,insinuated cover ups and lack of evidence of reality as being obtuse,nor presume you have to lecture anyone here.
Add insight you may have based on actual knowledge and there is no problem...go off onto opinions and expect them to be challenged.
It is not a hard recipe to follow.
So... why admonish me and not those imitating a sock puppet?
they give no input just silly crap... yet you choose me to admonish? No hyperbol, no doomsday, just facts as i have viewed them..
rather interesting choice.... and telling
Quite honestly because you chose to lash out at anyone in disagreement as being obtuse,your words and nothing more then a reminder that when opinion moves away from fact it needs to be stated as such and accepting of differing ones.
Get the chip off the shoulder and understand what give and take of ideas are.
Enough said and carry on with whatever facts you wish to present and clearly explain what your personal interpretation of them may be and be willing to accept some may disagree.
It really is simple so just do it.
If you are here to simply expect people to take your word as gospel and call any disagreement stupid then it won`t get far and whatever valid points you may have will get lost. :cheersmate:
The protection of the establishment is the same problem we have in politics today.. Those good ol boys are ok to demean and not address the facts presented.. Then as a persons of power they do not admonish those in the club, they admonish the person who is giving them facts... where did Mr sock puppet address even one fact? again behavior is telling...
I dont expect people to take me at my word, I expect them to treat me as an adult, and respond as an adult, addressing facts, or even expressing a reason for their not giving the assertions credence.... something that is not being equally distributed here..
In any event I now see how this site is moderated and how it is applied..
The protection of the establishment is the same problem we have in politics today.. Those good ol boys are ok to demean and not address the facts presented.. Then as a persons of power they do not admonish those in the club, they admonish the person who is giving them facts.You chose to pull your dick out with the previously-mentioned post. Don't act surprised when it gets slapped.
What I find stunning is the absolute obtuse nature some here have to things they do not understand.
I have spent many years watching Yellowstone, learning about it, watching changes, watching events....
You all can keep your tinfoil... your gonna need it to survive when it goes...
I'm sure the all knowing sock puppet who posted above will tell you...http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,54746.0/msg,862752.html
I'll ask you here the same questions you ignored in a different thread: Okay, what do we do about it? Why are you still living in the initial kill zone if all signs are pointing at a massive eruption in the near future?
Trip...
In your opinion, if Yellow Stone does "blow big", how much of a face lift will it give that area? How much destruction over what amount of land.
Several years ago I read a few articles about the underground super volcano in that area and per those articles the eruption could change the entire face of the map so to speak in that area.
The blast radius from Mt St Helens was roughly 6 miles, in which trees were leveled like bowling pins and shredded.
In the event of an explosive eruption from Yellowstone, the blast radius could reach 80 to 100 miles.
In the event of a pyroclastic flow, it could reach out at least to 250 miles, perhaps much more, and travel at 450 mph, with temperatures of about 1,830 °F.
Sources indicate the "kill zone" of a Yellowstone eruption, resulting from ejecta and poisonous gas, would reach out at least to 500 miles.
Then there's the substantial ashfall area beyond that, which would blanket the area downwind, and even small accumulations capable of causing roof collapse of all but the strongest of structures, and this could reach out to roughly 800 to 1000 miles. Volcanic ash is biologically inert, vitrified rock, basically glass, so it would be an obstacle to growing anything at all.
These are obviously all rough estimates.
An eruption would wipe out America's "breadbasket", killing off most of the nation's agriculture and cattle. This ignores the years of "volcanic winter" that would follow around the world, resulting in a greatly decreased growing season, and famine.
You didn't like my responses to your questions when I answered them HERE (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,54746.msg865511.html#msg865511)? Do you think that Billy_Bob's response will be all that different?
Or perhaps you think you're making some inherent point in the asking, such as implying that he's not all that sincere in his belief if he still lives in Wyoming?
He might explain that its not the best time to sell a house and search for a job elsewhere, particularly not with family in school and other concerns, but I would hope you could grasp that on your own without any explanation.
It seems you're more content with implying something from his remaining in Wyoming, rather than actually considering the facts themselves.
Your presumptions about the explosive nature of Yellowstone are not really accurate either.
Even if we had all the data at hand, there'd be no ability to establish to a certainty that an eruption was going to occur.
While "all signs" are indeed escalating toward an eruption, there is no certainty that it would be a "massive" (explosive) eruption, even if it does erupt. If we knew the melt consistency established by those seismic refraction surveys, we might have a better idea whether it would be an explosive (massive) eruption, or not. However those results have not been stated publicly. Despite lack of a public statement, I am reasonable certain that if the melt consistency, the viscosity, showed it was unable to be an explosive eruption, then they would have publicly announced it was of no concern, rather than continuing to relocate data and staff to Texas.
Your questions really were not worth all that much attention the first time around, not to mention the errant presumptions involving likelihood of eruption of Yellowstone.
Why not just state outright that you don't believe the sincerity of his alarm because he's still in Wyoming, and save us all the dance?
Because it would be a lie if I did. That's not why I'm asking, Trip. To suggest otherwise would be a bit presumptive, would it not?
So you have a sincere interest in why he makes the decisions he does for himself, his family, and his extended family, and none of this has anything to do with questioning the sincerity of his alarm?
If it doesn't have anything to do with challenging his assertions, then those questions are excessively personal and well beyond the consideration of this thread. You actually skipped right past the obvious questions about what preparations and precautions he and his family have had in place, in truth for nearly the past year and half, which is a presumption of its own. The larger presumption here is that your own perception of reality, is the reality.
It doesn't take all that much insight to see that your intent is to imply his real level alarm does not coincide with what you perceive as his actions in his personal life. You're not nearly as subtle as you imagine.
So you have a sincere interest in why he makes the decisions he does for himself, his family, and his extended family, and none of this has anything to do with questioning the sincerity of his alarm?
You're not nearly as subtle as you imagine.
Why don't you let Billy_Bob respond for himself, if he so desires, instead of presuming to speak for him?
Because I showed him my original response to the question directed to him the first time, and he obviously didn't feel any further answer of his own was necessary.
Because, fundamentally, its a dumb question with an obvious intent.
You showed it to him? He couldn't read it for himself? He is a member of this forum, is he not?
Obvious intent of what, Trip? Questioning his sincerity? I don't think that could rationally be done considering the amount and tone of the words on these two threads in Science Club.