Originally posted by kukla
Springer,
... if they are going to maintain it, why not keep it public?

I SWEAR I am NOT tying to be a PAIN(!) Heck i assure you that you have forgotten MORE about this than I shall EVER know. BUT...

I have to say that the explanation the guy gave stating "that they shut down public access to it to avoid answering all the queries that would have been generated by the bizarre activity caused by the extreme climate up there" simply "rings true" with me.

I have been in Las Vegas in July and gone up to the ski resort on top of the mountain there and seen over a foot of snow, winds in excess of 50mph. All of this while it is 103F and calm a mere 30 miles down the highway.

I'll gant you that the two may have ZERO in common (due to geographical and geophysical differences) but that experience lends credence to what the man said in my VEY limited mind.

PEACE...
m...

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Springer]

Originally posted by tchansen
No offense intended, but I was able to navigate to all three links - none were dead. Perhaps the site was having momentary difficulties.

Yes, I am able to view these pages now as well but haven't been for quite some time. I also see that the time/velocity vector data has been updated to last month which is satisfactory.


Concerning the question on the radius of damage. The answer wasn't what I was looking for but maybe it would be better suited for someone handling Emergency Management in that area such as the FEMA rep handling hazard mitigation. I can see where the scientist doing this interview didn't want to comment on something being delt with by another agency.

Thats it for this one.

Springer,

I think what is noteworthy is the admission that Mt. Sheridan is an important indicator. We pay for that equipment and I don't think its too much to ask to keep it public if they continue to maintain the station.

Also, to maintain the position that it generates too many inquiries runs contradictory to the statement regarding the mission to educate the public.

I would also like to note that when I visited with the ranger at the Lake, she acknowledged the event on 9/15/03.

Originally posted by kukla
Springer,

I think what is noteworthy is the admission that Mt. Sheridan is an important indicator. We pay for that equipment and I don't think its too much to ask to keep it public if they continue to maintain the station.

Well, heck when you put it that way it makes sense. I guess it does seem as though those who are interested enough to watch it should be smart enough to decipher the noise form the data huh?

m...

Maybe they could have a disclaimer statement with it that includes something like

'IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!'

something like that. prolly a little wordsmithing could be done, but you get the idea.

Originally posted by Springer

Springer,

Well, heck when you put it that way it makes sense. I guess it does seem as though those who are interested enough to watch it should be smart enough to decipher the noise form the data huh?

m...

Exactly Springer! I wonder how many inquiries they actually take on that particular webricorder..

Originally posted by Valhall
Maybe they could have a disclaimer statement with it that includes something like

'IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!'

something like that. prolly a little wordsmithing could be done, but you get the idea.

I like it! Val, you've always had a way w/ words...

I'm reading email reports of a possible earthquake around Yellowstone today of about 5.0 anyone have any info on this one? Valhall?

"Hey.. I think I just felt an earthquake - I'd guess about 5 something. I'm near Yellowstone. Does anybody have the link to the place that monitors earthquakes? "

Originally posted by quaternary
The Yellowstone Supervisory Geologist totally got this question WRONG:

Q: Concerning the radius for damage if the supercaldera were to erupt, is there a contingency plan in place for a defined area around Yellowstone? If so, what is it and what are the parameters of the defined area?

He avoided the question by citing the expected radius that will be effected by the small, "normal" eruptions and then saying "the supposed radius of damage you quote is only for an extremely unlikely kind of volcanic eruption".

From what I am led to understand, the magma chamber is approximately 72km across. If an eruption in the magnitude of the type which occurs in 600,000 year intervals occurs, it won't matter what contingency plan is in place.
The last eruption was calculated to be 1000 times as big as Mount Saint Helens and it is possible that one previous eruption could have been 8000 times as big. The fallout zone for this sort of eruption would be 1000s of kilometres. Previous eruptions have covered California to a depth of 6 metres and New York State to 20 metres. What sort of contingeny plan do you think can be put into place for that?

Contingency plans can only be put into place for small eruptions. Even then, it has to be said that vulcanologists don't exactly have the best record in the world for predicting eruptions. Mount Saint Helens was bubbling away for 2 months and it still took 99% of them by suprise.

Contingency plans for a large eruption would be a waste of time. If it blows, it blows - there is nothing that anyone will be able to do about it.

Originally posted by tracer
I really dont know what to think except that interview with USGS scientists or not I would have to say they work for the federal government or at least get some kind of funding through them. I think everyone is a liitle fast accepting them at face value.

I agree. There is nothing new here. In the interest of science, a scientist must also give politically correct answers to insure that their place in science is secure or at least secure enough not to warrant suspicion or rebuke. There are no 'real' expert(s) living today that has witnessed a supervolcano eruption or events leading up to one. A scientist or vulcanologist can only 'guess' when one is going to occur. In the study of supervolcanos, we are 'All' still amateurs.

Mag10

Society has it so good. Who on Earth would contradict the official line when their superannuation, benefits, raises and promotions are on the line.....

Plus all these people have studied their fields from the same official line setup.


The official line here is...I don't believe the official line..........


and I am getting more and more jaded and more and more irate as I get older...........

Hell, money buys everything..and its no good being a scientist and raising issues if you are going to be denounced by your peers and shoot yourself in the foot.........

EXCELLENT WORK GUYS!!!

WTG!!! very very interesting!!! would be nice if more funds could get funneled in to the area for more indepth studies!!

but excellent work. good job!


angie