Trip - You and Yellowstone

[dandi]

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.

Well, how do you like that?  Learn something new everyday.

Thanks for the amplifying info, DAT.

 

I still wonder, though, just what the next one will look like.  Personally, I think it will probably be a doozie.

[dandi]

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.

True, and I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.  Work, live your life, and go about your day. 

Like I said, the best thing to do would be to be there when it happens so you can witness it firsthand.  Once in a million year opportunity.

 

[Trip]

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", but given the overall magma dispersal and quake-associated instabilities to depth, I no longer consider this to be the most "at risk" area.

 

[dandi]

Wasp, ya know, if you keep this up, I may just send you a Valentine after all.

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.

 

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", but given the overall magma dispersal and quake-associated instabilities to depth, I no longer consider this to be the most "at risk" area.

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"?

[Trip]

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.

 

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  .  It too has its benefits.

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"?

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.

(click to enlarge)

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.

[Evil_Conservative]

Trip, are you a geologist?  Or do you study this stuff for a hobby?

[dandi]

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  .  It too has its benefits.

That being an insult never crossed my mind, but I thank you for your clarification.   

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!)

Indeed.  Makes one wonder what is on it, yes?

However going by what I do have, my "areas of concern" extend to the west-northwest from the existing caldera.

(click to enlarge)

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.

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?

[Trip]

Here is something that should raise everyone's brows...

This mapping of the magma is from 2009, before the climax of that period of "extraordinary caldera deformation".

Here is the 3-D mapping of the magma chamber:

"Yellowstone Magma Pocket 20% Larger Than Thought"
(notice the upper portion of the plume extending far to the west, well outside of Yellowstone's footprint)


Below is a Java rendition of the magma chamber and plume below it, which appears accurate according to the above 2009 3-D mapping (though I cannot testify as to that).

Virtual Dive Down Yellowstone's Plume

If the above doesn't put a serious kink in one's panties, I don't know what will. The scale and possible scope of what we may be looking at is truly overwhelming.

[Trip]

Trip, are you a geologist?  Or do you study this stuff for a hobby?

I have a undergrad degrees geology and geophysics, with focus on geomorphology and  petrology, from a very well respected school in geology, and Master's in other areas of Geology. 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.

[dandi]

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.

What have you done since then?

[Trip]

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!)

Indeed.  Makes one wonder what is on it, yes?

I'm not going to say a whole lot on this subject, but in all my time doing geology work, and working with technicians under me, or associated with that work, I've never known them to be quiet about anything. Yet all of these technicians were totally quiet on what they did and observed when this data was brought in.

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?

Hard to say which of the indicated locations are the most unstable ("hotspot" is a term generally denoting a single plume, so referencing them as such is confusing things).  However it's no exaggeration that the continuous quakes from depth to near-surface at these locations does indicate the stratigraphic instability over that range, at those specific locations.

Because harmonic tremors are not localized seismic signatures, having no focus point, there's no saying what specific area(s) that magma is penetrating. However it's clear that magma is rising from depth and penetrating new areas of rock via fractures, expanding the chamber. Additionally there are repeatedly clear indications of rock fracturing with clearly defined p-wave events, providing further conduits, and also hybrid events, where that rock is already partially immersed in magma, producing a less-clear, or even non-existent, p-wave fracturing signature.  

The absence of "quakes", with no focal point,  at any given moment, doesn't really serve as an indication that there's nothing going on.

There's a lot going on down there.  

[Godot showed up]

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]

What have you done since then?

Well, I haven't parked my "happy ass" on any volcanoes, if that's what you mean.

However I do regularly employ quite a lot of other remote survey tomographic methods, such as ground penetrating radar(GPR), seismic refraction, magnetometry (Mag), electro-magnetometry (EM), resistivity, and others, all of which involve  interpretation and mapping of survey data.  In part, as I've previously indicated, my experience with these remote survey methods led me to consulting the military involving UXO and base demilitarizations.

[Trip]

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?

Hey! good to see ya.

Yeah it's "when", not "if", and the indications of "when" are what's bothering me.  I was not really paying much attention to Yellowstone until someone put a seismogram from the Jan 25th under my nose. And then I just about **** myself seeing the harmonic tremors.

We then began perusing direct contact with official, on-site experts at UofU Yellowstone seismology,  which by nothing but pure luck, already existed as a result of a long-established, personal connection someone there.  To say that this personal contact suddenly became "chilly" when he was approached at work, via official channels  on the 25th, is an understatement.

It was a sobering phone call. No one had to say specifically "why" it was either.

I've referenced this video before, but it's a good one, and the latter part of the video references the specific specific up-tick in alarm regarding Yellowstone as far back as 2004. Since then there has been a consistent escalation of events, the latest being the widespread harmonic tremors, which were not in evidence before.

VIDEO: Naked Science: Super Volcano

[Ballygrl]

Trip, could this somehow be related to the Mayan Calendar?

Bumping! I know it's a silly question but I'm curious about people's opinion on this.

[Evil_Conservative]

Thanks for sharing the Naked Science video.  That's exactly what I wanted to take a look at.

[Trip]

Trip, could this somehow be related to the Mayan Calendar?

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.



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.



 


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.

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"

[Ballygrl]

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.

[Thor]

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.

No, it's 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 Jochmans

http://www.adishakti.org/mayan_end_times_prophecy_12-21-2012.htm

Basically, it's a new Age. Will mankind cease to exist or will there be some sort of devastating apocalypse?? That's yet to be determined.

[Ballygrl]

Thanks Thor!

[Godot showed up]

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.



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.



 


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.

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"

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.

[Trip]

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)

[Carl]

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.

[Attero Dominatus]

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.

What he means is that there is a hypothesis that there is a brown dwarf which orbits the sun at a different angle than Earth and the majority of the planets do. This hypothesis is the source of the 'Nemesis/Niburu' theories that you find on the internet.

Since brown dwarfs have been detected orbiting other stars, we would know if there was one orbiting the sun.

[Trip]

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!

or in 2008: Scientists Discovery Solar System's Mystery "Planet X"

Video: Interview of Dr Robert S Harrington, U.S. Naval Observatory

Or a video by 2012 Doomsdayers:  "2012 : How To Survive"