YELLOWSTONE ANIMALS FLEEING PARK. SUPERVOLCANO ERUPTION IMMINENT?

say what said:
This came up in my newsfeed http://dutchsinse.tatoott1009.com/4142014-series-of-noteworthy-earthquakes-within-the-yellowstone-magma-chamber/

thought it went well here!
Click to expand...

Earthquakes could be a real problem.

Also I wonder about smaller eruptions or steam explosions. Everybody is addressing the worst case scenario, but supervolcanoes don't necessarily erupt fully. Smaller lava flows and steam explosions can happen to release magma pressure without having the whole supereruption thing.

Explosions and lava flows are still few and far between in comparison to supereruptions, but they've happened at Yellowstone more frequently - the last significant steam explosion was only 13,000 years ago.

Also note that the caldera is constantly active anyway, this is what makes the geysers. Hydrothermal explosions are basically the same as geysers but they're powerful enough to explode rocks in addition to the water and steam.

I wonder if they're looking at anything smaller than a full blown eruption. It might be prudent.
 
sprinkles said:
Earthquakes could be a real problem.

Also I wonder about smaller eruptions or steam explosions. Everybody is addressing the worst case scenario, but supervolcanoes don't necessarily erupt fully. Smaller lava flows and steam explosions can happen to release magma pressure without having the whole supereruption thing.

Explosions and lava flows are still few and far between in comparison to supereruptions, but they've happened at Yellowstone more frequently - the last significant steam explosion was only 13,000 years ago.

Also note that the caldera is constantly active anyway, this is what makes the geysers. Hydrothermal explosions are basically the same as geysers but they're powerful enough to explode rocks in addition to the water and steam.

I wonder if they're looking at anything smaller than a full blown eruption. It might be prudent.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about any of this...but could they be causing the quakes so that it doesn't erupt? Would that help?

Additionally, there seems to be a lot of quakes lately- is that common?
 
say what said:
I don't know much about any of this...but could they be causing the quakes so that it doesn't erupt? Would that help?

Additionally, there seems to be a lot of quakes lately- is that common?
Click to expand...

Well it wouldn't really help. There's two kinds of quakes. One is just the plates shifting around, and the other kind is volcanic related due to magma pressure.

An earthquake can't really help against a volcano - it'd more likely help the volcano to erupt by stressing the earth's crust and eventually making it crack so that it gets a chance to erupt.

Edit: also quakes are common there but they might not be this common.
 
[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

Also data shows a similar upticks in quake activity in the mid-late 90s as well as around 2000, followed by a tapering off in the years up to now.

This has been seen before so it's definitely too early to panic, but that doesn't mean there's absolutely no concern. Earthquakes are still problematic.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Green is green. Green is blue.

Because I say both but am only right about one, am I still right?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
The principle of explosion, (Latin: ex falso quodlibet, "from a falsehood, anything follows", or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[SUP][1][/SUP] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its negation) can be inferred from it.
As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements - “All lemons are yellow” and "Not all lemons are yellow", and suppose (for the sake of argument) that both are simultaneously true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g. "Santa Claus exists", by using the following argument:

  1. We know that "All lemons are yellow" as it is defined to be true.
  2. Therefore the statement that (“All lemons are yellow" OR "Santa Claus exists”) must also be true, since the first part is true.
  3. However, if "Not all lemons are yellow" (and this is also defined to be true), Santa Claus must exist - otherwise statement 2 would be false. It has thus been "proven" that Santa Claus exists. The same could be applied to any assertion, including the statement "Santa Claus does not exist".
 
Here is the recent data for the quake activity of the Yellowstone caldera
2qvb1jb.png


The black bars represent the number of quakes per time period, and the red line is the curve of cumulative quakes.

Keep in mind that the red line is cumulative - it's adding up all the measured quakes so the line always goes up and the curve of the line measures frequency.

You can see that around 96 and 97 there was a crapton more quakes than normal and then it settled down again. This is the caldera 'breathing', like so:
313j1p0.jpg
 
sprinkles said:
Here is the recent data for the quake activity of the Yellowstone caldera
2qvb1jb.png


The black bars represent the number of quakes per time period, and the red line is the curve of cumulative quakes.

Keep in mind that the red line is cumulative - it's adding up all the measured quakes so the line always goes up and the curve of the line measures frequency.

You can see that around 96 and 97 there was a crapton more quakes than normal and then it settled down again. This is the caldera 'breathing', like so:
313j1p0.jpg
Click to expand...

So it sounds like it's probably a 'natural' occurrence- but it could shift things in Yellowstone.

Interesting, so the shifting plates may cause the magma earthquakes- is there anyway to stop it?

Additionally, this is a bit off topic, I don't remember tsunamis being a common occurrence- not that they are now...do landbase earthquakes create tsunamis? or is it just earthquakes in the ocean?
 
Skarekrow said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
The principle of explosion, (Latin: ex falso quodlibet, "from a falsehood, anything follows", or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[SUP][1][/SUP] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its negation) can be inferred from it.
As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements - “All lemons are yellow” and "Not all lemons are yellow", and suppose (for the sake of argument) that both are simultaneously true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g. "Santa Claus exists", by using the following argument:

  1. We know that "All lemons are yellow" as it is defined to be true.
  2. Therefore the statement that (“All lemons are yellow" OR "Santa Claus exists”) must also be true, since the first part is true.
  3. However, if "Not all lemons are yellow" (and this is also defined to be true), Santa Claus must exist - otherwise statement 2 would be false. It has thus been "proven" that Santa Claus exists. The same could be applied to any assertion, including the statement "Santa Claus does not exist".
Click to expand...

I did not follow this. I think it was good slight of hand.

Santa Clause does exist. Prove he doesnt.

I find it interesting the amount of focus being placed on truth and what is true here. It makes me wonder if there is not something very deeply buried with in the brain causing us to question truth around us... I cant actually grasp it yet.
 
say what said:
So it sounds like it's probably a 'natural' occurrence- but it could shift things in Yellowstone.

Interesting, so the shifting plates may cause the magma earthquakes- is there anyway to stop it?

Additionally, this is a bit off topic, I don't remember tsunamis being a common occurrence- not that they are now...do landbase earthquakes create tsunamis? or is it just earthquakes in the ocean?
Click to expand...

I don't personally know about stopping it so can't really say.

Sufficiently strong earthquakes on land can possibly cause a tsunami if it lifts an ocean plate. The plates are gigantic and may be partly in land and mostly in water so even if the fault that causes the quake on land, if it's the right kind of movement and is powerful enough, it could cause a tsunami.
 
The tsunami in Indonesia was the largest natural disaster in terms of ending human life in written history. If I am wrong I have faith someone here will let me know. The point is, on the news we heard about 250,000 people dead. Just a staggering lost of life. But on a planet of 6 Billion people, what do we think of this event today? "Hey remember the tsunami that killed all those people.." etc. And even that size event did not change the world much.

When the volcano in Yellowstone goes off, the world changes. Thats really just the fact of the matter. America ceases to be a super power, probably forever. Humanity will survive but it wont have any resemblance to what it looks like today.

I used to worry about it like I used to worry about planet killers. One day though a thought just kind of dumped on me. No matter what I do, I am going to die. Id rather die first before seeing anyone else I care about suffer. So big events like that, dont really bother me any more. Small ones do though. The ones where the world doesnt change, just where you live changes.
 
[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

To add to that though, a quake that causes a tsunami will be at least near the shore. It won't be far inland but shoreline faults have caused quakes that destroyed cities and caused tsunamis at the same time.

It doesn't have to be way out in the ocean, just the edge still counts.
 
Eventhorizon said:
The tsunami in Indonesia was the largest natural disaster in terms of ending human life in written history. If I am wrong I have faith someone here will let me know. The point is, on the news we heard about 250,000 people dead. Just a staggering lost of life. But on a planet of 6 Billion people, what do we think of this event today? "Hey remember the tsunami that killed all those people.." etc. And even that size event did not change the world much.

When the volcano in Yellowstone goes off, the world changes. Thats really just the fact of the matter. America ceases to be a super power, probably forever. Humanity will survive but it wont have any resemblance to what it looks like today.

I used to worry about it like I used to worry about planet killers. One day though a thought just kind of dumped on me. No matter what I do, I am going to die. Id rather die first before seeing anyone else I care about suffer. So big events like that, dont really bother me any more. Small ones do though. The ones where the world doesnt change, just where you live changes.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know more about this!

What do you think the consequences are?
 
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

To add to that though, a quake that causes a tsunami will be at least near the shore. It won't be far inland but shoreline faults have caused quakes that destroyed cities and caused tsunamis at the same time.

It doesn't have to be way out in the ocean, just the edge still counts.
Click to expand...

But a quake would have to be more substantial than what we're seeing on the graphs, right? I gotta say, being a port city, I have nightmares about a tsunami - I look out my wind, and I see it coming for me.
 
Earth quakes in yellostone are not your common earthquakes. Most are due plate boundries sliding against another. In Yellowstone, we have a solid plate of crust that being forced into new shapes. Earthquakes are a sign of pressure changes down there. Increased frequency of earthquakes + uplift means the magma is gaining ground.
 
say what said:
But a quake would have to be more substantial than what we're seeing on the graphs, right? I gotta say, being a port city, I have nightmares about a tsunami - I look out my wind, and I see it coming for me.
Click to expand...

Yes generally it has to be pretty huge to cause a significant tsunami - we're talking a 7 or 8 quake at least. And not only does it have to be that strong but it has to be a quake that shifts vertically and doesn't just slide horizontally. It's the vertical lift or even lowering of part of the sea floor that causes the wave surge. So even really big quakes aren't a sure thing to cause one.
 
say what said:
I'd love to know more about this!

What do you think the consequences are?
Click to expand...

Nuclear winter for the world lasting years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer <----This event is thousands of times smaller than the super-volcano will be. The entire US, A good bit of Canada covered in ash. Ash 2 feet thick a thousand miles from epicenter.
http://www.realclearscience.com/2013/05/18/what_if_yellowstone039s_supervolcano_erupts_253071.html

I hate to say it but I have been following this for a long while. News sources are down playing it now whereas before they were not. One, the American government doesnt see great benefiting in panicking its citizens to the point there is massive upheaval. Two theres nothing that can be done about it so why cause a panic.

Note: They really downplay this these days. This is a world changing event.
 
I was just reading something on snopes about this and came across some interesting information. The USGS is actively spreading disinformation concerning this. Geologist who have studied this agree that while there is not specific time frame for these eruptions, the average time span between eruptions in the past show that it is in fact overdue to erupt concerning the average at this point. The USGS is saying this is false.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/gnus/yellowstone.asp

"The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also notes in the volcano section of their web site that the Yellowstone Caldera is not "overdue" for an eruption (as many have claimed), and although it could erupt again someday, there are currently no "signs of activity that suggest an eruption is imminent":
"

'We're still uncertain about when the next eruption will happen, but what we can say is that where before we knew we were overdue one, now we know we're long overdue one.'
Dr Darren Mark, The Scottish Universities Environmental Research Center


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25312674
 
Last edited:
Eventhorizon said:
I was just reading something on snopes about this and came across some interesting information. The USGS is actively spreading disinformation concerning this. Geologist who have studied this agree that while there is not specific time frame for these eruptions, the average time span between eruptions in the past show that it is in fact overdue to erupt concerning the average at this point. The USGS is saying this is false.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/gnus/yellowstone.asp

"The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also notes in the volcano section of their web site that the Yellowstone Caldera is not "overdue" for an eruption (as many have claimed), and although it could erupt again someday, there are currently no "signs of activity that suggest an eruption is imminent":
"

'We're still uncertain about when the next eruption will happen, but what we can say is that where before we knew we were overdue one, now we know we're long overdue one.'
Dr Darren Mark, The Scottish Universities Environmental Research Center


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25312674
Click to expand...

It probably is overdue, but that doesn't mean the data is wrong.

Yes in 1923 the crustal deformation was high - but then it reversed and lowered again. Now it is rising again. Tell me how you can get an eruption out of that?

It may be 'overdue' but eruptions don't happen because they're overdue. They happen because the conditions become right. So unless they're suggesting that the USGS predicted that they'd need to make a coverup some 80 years down the road and modified the data, or that the USGS actually went back in time and changed data to reflect this, then where is the evidence?

Saying "It's supposed to happen by now" is not enough.
 
I have two trains of thoughts about this. The first is, given statistics and what is known, the likelihood that this goes off during our life time is almost nonexistent. Why talk about it, theres nothing that can be done.
The second is that it may not go off during our lifetime but it is going to go off no question. So why shouldn’t we be concerned with how it will change the world? Being concerned about it leads to things like a seed bank. However the seed bank itself is probably useless because after governments fall, they will be raided.
Long story short is that as individual’s there’s little we can do.
So when I talk about it I either worry people who never knew about it or piss people off. I offer information, occasionally I throw my own opinion into it. These days I don’t go out of my way to talk about it unless someone else is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top