Whats going on at yellowstone?

reply to post by pantangele


During the 1985 swarm multiple M4.0+ earthquakes and a M4.9 earthquake occurred.
In comparison, in terms of cumulative earthquake energy, the current swarm is still nothing

reply to post by Shirakawa


You seem to be the resident expert as I monitor this thread several times a day and I watch the real-time data using GEE, and I can obviously see when an earthquake occurs using GEE, but can you help tell me how to approximate a magnitude from this data? I see that H17.A seems to be where the best readings are coming from... can you help me out?

Thanks, and great analysis of all this so far!

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Sf18443]

o_O wow... i agree. some of the most brilliant minds here... all i can say is; i'd rather have control of my end, than some volcano. lol so i'll prolly join the ranks of people who take it into control when it does. *shrug* keep up the awesome work guys. some people count on it more than you know.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I remember a part of that PDF you linked said that it wasn't clear whether the accumulating stress on the south part of the park (Teton area) was being loaded from the rest of the park or what. If it is, and the magnitude/frequency of these quakes is increasing like we are observing, I would not be surprised to see another big shock like that 3.6 come from the south part of the park soon, reacting in response to this increase.

reply to post by Sf18443


Unfortunately I can't help you because it's not an easy task to determine earthquake magnitudes. My numbers are only estimates based on previously occurred earthquakes listed on the UUSS website.

I only take into account that wave amplitude approximately doubles for a 0.3 difference in magnitude, and approximately increases by 25% for a 0.1 difference. It also increases by a factor of 10 for a 1.0 difference in magnitude. If an earthquake occurred at exactly the same spot has exactly twice the amplitude (or twice the duration for short band stations with low dynamic range) of its preceding one, then you know that it's 0.3 magnitude larger.

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Shirakawa


Okay, that's cool. Besides, experiential knowledge, like yours, is much more valuable than you rattling off some formula! Thanks man and keep up the great work.

reply to post by Sf18443


Here's a simple chart for that:

reply to post by Shirakawa


You're great.

Could you post a diagram for me. It's in this pdf, page 405, figure 7, 3D model of caldera and chamber. 1985.

I've been browsing Smith's review of the quakes between 1981 and 199something. The discussion is about a problems with the depths. That was in 2004, this other paper seems like it's newer. Still looking.

What it our cumluative energy compared to last year's swarm, allowing that you'll have to guess about missing events. I thought the Lake swarm was 4.1M am I wrong? What's the best numbers you got?

Comparison of ANSS catalog data and Yellowstone Catalog for 1985 swarm in terms of daily number of quakes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07154086008a.png[/atsimg]

Just a small one adding the cumulatives

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8a26df7eeb12.png[/atsimg]


[edit on 2/2/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by Sf18443


Here are a couple of threads that will help you with GEE and magnitudes:

GEE tips
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

GEE screenshots
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Robin Marks
reply to post by Shirakawa

 

You're great.

Could you post a diagram for me. It's in this pdf, page 405, figure 7, 3D model of caldera and chamber. 1985.

What pdf?

What it our cumluative energy compared to last year's swarm, allowing that you'll have to guess about missing events. I thought the Lake swarm was 4.1M am I wrong? What's the best numbers you got?

If the lake swarm was equivalent to a M4.30, then this one, for now (the very incomplete data I have, sorry), is equivalent to a single M4.32 earthquake.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Sweet man, I appreciate your analysis in this thread, guys like you help educate me and others that are very interested in this subject. Thanks again man, i was just searching...

reply to post by Shirakawa


I guess it would help if I gave you the link. Duh, too excited. We've got so many issues and were trying to confirm information and hunt research. This is really exciting. I knew we had to keep a close eye on her because something incredible is happening here. I'm talking about a swarm that must be causing the geologists some of the same excitement we are experincing. I really want to understand 1985 and I have to take it wear it leads me.

IF and a big if, if the quakes in 1985 were not all part of one swarm. Then a one of those two larger quakes may be from a seperate event. IF there is found to be more than one swarm. Then the energy would have to be split up as well. Too many questions. Not enough answers.

Here's the link he he.

www.seismo.ethz.ch...


thanks again. You're better than a computer. Every once in a while you show emotion.
Damn I knew things would ramp up today. I got home and I was already hyper. And all I could think was that it was quiet on the webicoders and on the thread. I took the liberty to rant. I was waiting for the inedvitible rush back here when the action started again in short time. I was just about to guess when some bigger one would return when they did. I was surprise even though I knew I'd find some quakes. I was surprised by the suddeness and the larger size of the quakes. I know it's hard to understand me. But go back and read and I've had this thing pegged from the start. I knew it was coming (prediticion) I knew immediately that it was not a common swarm and it would last and incredible time. I warned repeatedly not to underestimate this event, and warned you not to be fooled. I'm not boasting and trying to tailor my about what's happening, but rather what's going to keep happening and how it will do that. The low point durning the full moon was a pause. We know see an increase that seems to a have a buiding trend. This concerns me because I was hoping for a moderately low period until the new moon. Now I am really sure there will be a large spike just like we had when at the begining starting on the 17th. Another large event during Valentine's Day could match the frequency like the begining. If that were to happen it would look like the 1985 bar graph. Two Peaks. When I first saw the graph and noticed the low point, it seemed that if the swarm regain it's strength and spiked again, this would be like 1985. There are parallels between these events. One parallel has not been established. In 1985 there was fluid migration. Will this swarm parllel 1985 in this manner.

Nough said

And this swarm is 4.32M so it wins by a nose at this point. Have you calculated in these new ones? And how much data are you waiting on? How many quakes?

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Robin Marks]

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Robin Marks]

Another...

Magnitude 2.6
Date-Time

* Wednesday, February 03, 2010 at 03:25:17 UTC
* Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 08:25:17 PM at epicenter

Location 44.561°N, 110.949°W
Depth 5.6 km (3.5 miles) (poorly constrained)
Region YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING
Distances

* 17 km (10 miles) SE (132°) from West Yellowstone, MT
* 32 km (20 miles) ENE (77°) from Island Park, ID
* 56 km (35 miles) SSW (199°) from Gardiner, MT
* 430 km (267 miles) N (10°) from Salt Lake City, UT

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.3 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 9.9 km (6.2 miles)
Parameters NST= 27, Nph= 27, Dmin=10 km, Rmss=0.15 sec, Gp= 83°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=2

2.5 2010/02/03 03:25:16 44.562 -110.950 5.6 17 km ( 10 mi) SE of West Yellowstone, MT
2.8 2010/02/03 02:44:12 44.561 -110.947 5.4 17 km ( 11 mi) SE of West Yellowstone, MT
3.1 2010/02/03 02:31:47 44.559 -110.944 8.7 17 km ( 11 mi) SE of West Yellowstone, MT

earthquake.usgs.gov...

reply to post by Shirakawa


What was that magnitude thing again 3.2, 32 ????

I seem to have lost the email.

reply to post by Robin Marks


Ok, here it is:

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Shirakawa

 

What was that magnitude thing again 3.2, 32 ????

I seem to have lost the email.

31.6
Look here: en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

ok acquiring said program called GEE. I hope the OSX version is friendly.

Originally posted by shutterbugw
ok acquiring said program called GEE. I hope the OSX version is friendly.

eQuake is a nice little add-on, too

Ok I have the ability to check graphs, I just need to know how to access the correct ones I am using DSL and am ready to see what the real thing looks like.