Earlier in this thread
TVDoc and I had an exchange regarding the corruption of the scientific process, 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.
Protocols for
Geologic Hazards Response
by the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1351/The above document was approved for publication June 9, 2010, and reflects the influence of the Presidential Memorandum on "Scientific Integrity" issued the previous year.
What's interesting about this document is that it demonstrates an enormous "loophole" in between response protocols and actual volcanic activity, with this loophole allowing for the political influence upon publicly stated scientific conclusions.
IN section 4e, that document discusses
"Information Releases":
- As of March 2010, YVO issues a monthly update on the status of the Yellowstone volcano on or around the first of each month. The update synthesizes the monitoring information and expert opinion solicited from YVO cooperators and collaborators. After a notable earthquake, earthquake swarm, hydrothermal explosion or other geological event, the YVO may choose to release an information statement that provides details on the event and possible outcomes. During an event response or an upgrade in alert level, YVO will release daily updates.
Currently, the UUSS policy is to issue a press release after any earthquake greater than magnitude 3.5 within the UUSS reporting area for the Yellowstone region. They typically do the same after the onset of any notable earthquake swarm, especially those that attract public interest or include felt events. YVO then re-issues the press release as an information statement; YVO might include in the information statement additional content as it relates to potential volcanism. Press releases by any of the three YVO partners are normally vetted through the other partners. As discussed above, during a Volcano Advisory or Watch, YVO will release daily updates. Any separate press releases by the USGS, YNP, or UU will be closely coordinated with the public information team (or the Joint Information Center organized through the ICS structure) if there is the potential for related volcanic activity.
The problem with the above, is that the "extraordinary caldera deformation" was a precursor which occurred over a period of 6 years (and actually continues today), and then led to a series of minor quakes, quake swarms (with no eruption), few of which triggered any sort of 3.5 level notification response, and these swarms only involved voluntary public statement anyway. Yet all these events, and more, have been working toward the same end over an extended period of time.
This bureaucratic warning system, and its alert triggers, is not framed to address this sort of extended geologic time frame.
Furthermore, the widespread evidences of "volcanic tremors" are not actually localized quakes, and do not trigger any absolute response, yet they are an ominous precursor to volcanic activity, particularly given the lengthy period of "extraordinary caldera deformation" associated with those tremors. Given this, the cumulative impact of events, when examined by these bureaucratic standards, does not trigger any obligatory response with a public statement, nor disclosure.
Even had all events occurred with in a given time-frame, the response would still remain discretionary, and subject to political, bureaucratic oversight.
What we have here is the public's "Right to Know" being suppressed by the bureaucratic process and somewhat loose and arbitrary standards, with that bureaucratic process greatly inhibiting any sort of candid statement. This has become even more relevant because the activation of Yellowstone's volcanism has been such a gradual and lengthy process, over nearly a decade. The extended time-frame allows political oversight to dismiss the events occurring over extended periods, as not having any urgency to them.
These same oversights are glaringly obvious in the very next paragraph, section 5, "Alert Notification Scheme and Decision Criteria". Here they contrast Yellowstone to "many stratovolcanoes" regarding behavior, to justify this even-more-lax notification "scheme", while Yellowstone clearly is not any sort of stratovolcano. They're using the stratovolcano framework to evaluate Yellowstone - which is quite probably a very dangerous paradigm.
YVO's Hazards Response scheme is not only tailored to stratovolcano conditions, but even when those 3 conditions ( EQ swarm, rapid displacement, significant hydrothermal explosion ) are met in a short period of time, the response still remains discretionary, i.e. subject to political input!
The result is, even if one or two geologists professionals, directly attached to Yellowstone, were to recognize serious warning signals and cause for concern, these would be muted by the overall stratification of the "vetting process", which has undue influence by political parties, who are not scientists.
Yellowstone's monthly status has never been anything but "Normal/Green", and is likely to be as useful as the 'idiot gages" on a car dashboard.
What we have here is the bureaucratic process at its most dangerous. This is yet another example of the corruption of the scientific process by its politicization, also seen in regard to "Climate Change", NASA policy, and even the actions of the FDA and other government agencies.
