What might really be happening in Washington State?

I was going to write this under the quake watch thread, but decided I wanted to put it out there for as many people to debunk as possible.

There have been many geological and volcanic occurances around the world lately and now, closer to home. I live in the Pacific Northwest and have been an active quake watcher for some years now. Recently, I have been hearing different things in the news and seen changes with the quake patterns and today it all came together for me. I have a theory....please remember it is a theory, not a claim. What I would really like is for those of you with some knowledge to think about what I am posing and find every way possible to debunk it. I will sleep better tonight that way.

Okay, first. There was a new active volcano discovered about 200 miles offshore of washington state in 2008. Here is that article: link

Then, this past year some members of the scientific community published a paper suggesting that there is a very large magma chamber, or caldera under most of Western Washington feeding our very active volcanic range. (St. Helens, Rainier, Baker, Hood) Here are a couple of articles about it:
link

link

And a map of where it is suposed to be:

picture

This past week or so there have been several quakes off the coast of Washington/Oregon, on the fault line and some say close to the newly discovered volcano. Here is a map of those recent quakes: earthquake.usgs.gov...


Now an ATS member on the quake watch thread brought to our attention that some of the seismos located rigt over said caldera are showing what very suspicously looks like possible HT. Here is a link to that seismo:

seismo link


SO, my theory is what IF: The new volcano is being fed by magma from the caldera chamber migrating to the surface? The new quakes off shore are an indicator of some new stirrings whithin the caldera and the possible HT the magma rising now in other areas of this chamber?

Thoughts? For or against? I am thinking out loud here! Thanks in advance.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by westcoast]

star and flag for you my friend , well it wouldnt hurt to keep a close eye on . in this day and age anything is possible ......

Can you imagine the unrivaled destruction of a caldera in Washington and Yellowstone erupting at the same time? If the San Andreas fault goes a tumblin in a spectacular way I don't want to be near anything that has to do with the north west.

reply to post by westcoast


I am currently in touch with someone at the USGS, and have just sent them mail regarding this very issue of whether those are HT's or what. Will post back once I get a response...

[edit on Mon Mar 15th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

S+F for you, nice presentation.

I'm most interested in annmaries finding of the possibly HT showing on many sites. I have been looking at them and I'm curious to what that could be.

I think the caldera idea is sound and considering my location, not very appeasing on my nerves. The most important thing to me is finding out why so many stations all the way down to Vancouver have it showing up on it.

So what your saying is... it's an underwater caldera? That's not good to have.

reply to post by westcoast


Hi West Coast and thanks for sharing your ideas. I think there very well could be a massive molten blob under Washington State regardless of what some geologist believe. It makes sense to me being along the eastern edge of the ring of fire, and all of the Volcano's located there, the magnetic anomolies and new volcanoes forming. This in my opinion suggests just what you hypothesize. I too live along the ring, way north of you I might add and am very conscious of the earths pimples (gross analogy I know). What gets me is how scientist can put a dormant or extinct label on a volcano just because it hasn't erupted in recorded history. Geologic time and our recorded history is like comparing apples and oranges. to your thinking.

There was a long thread back in Nov/Dec where this english kid said his dad was over here state side (Oregon or Wash) mapping magma sources and said it was Top Secret work... His posts stop after christmas I think.

Yellowstone thread kind of distracted me after that. Your post reminded me of that thread.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Ikema]

reply to post by Ikema


Yeah I remember that guy but I thought it was CA where they sent his dad. We had lots of quakes in 2008 off the coast but I think a little more south. Article about it.

www.redorbit.com...

Thanks for the replies. The fact that no one has jumped up and told me I'm stupid is not making me feel any better though.

I wanted to keep the original post as scientific as possible, so now I would also like to add to my list of reasons, the recent 'noise' phenomenom.

I am a personal 'witness' to the strange sounds we have been experiencing here. There is a long thread on it, I will find it and add it here in a bit. The best way I can describe it is as if the ground is resonating and then this resonation is bounced off the atmosphere and then you hear it as a kind of far away, distant thunder, but closer than it sounds. Wow...does that even make sense to anyone besides myself?

Let me describe it this way: I was outside at night and heard what I thought was a wierd thunder, but I knew it wasn't thunder. It was if I could feel the vibration in my body and then hear it from a distance, low and rumbling. The sky was clear over me and according to the radar, everywhere near me. I immediately went inside and checked to make sure baker wasn't rumbling (that's what it sounded like) and checked the local weather. I found the thread regarding this very noise later and I just don't know what to make of it. I have heard it three times now.

I have always thought it was geological in nature. When I found out about the possible caldera, I immediately thought of this 'noise' and wondered if it could be connected.

Okay...back to the thread.

TA, I eagerly await to hear what your reply is. I am hoping it can be easily explained away as something other than HT. I agree that many, many seismos all along the coast are looking wierd. But again, I do not normally monitor those specific stations, so I can not give an opinion on them.

I am going to do some more research later tonight when I actually have time and do some comparisons. I'll try to debunk some of this myself, and hopefully wont find more info to support it.

Edit to add the thread link: What's shaking the skies of the northwest?

[edit on 15-3-2010 by westcoast]

Any idea where exactly, in 10,000 ft of water?






maps.google.com...,-77.036133&sspn=0.215388,0.438766&g=washington&ie=UTF8&hq=& hnear=Washington&ll=45.182037,-130.693359&spn=6.240678,22.412109&t=h&z=6

reply to post by freetree64


I'm still searching for a map of a more precise location, but I came across this article. VERY intersting info on the formation and dynamics of the PNW.

link

If you scroll down to near the bottom, there is a map and info on the most recent activity....and then you can click onto a link that leads to more. Good stuff!

reply to post by westcoast

SO, my theory is what IF: The new volcano is being fed by magma from the caldera chamber migrating to the surface? The new quakes off shore are an indicator of some new stirrings whithin the caldera and the possible HT the magma rising now in other areas of this chamber?

Hey good thread!

I am not so sure if it is a migrating caldera chamber causing the volcanoes and earthquakes.

You linked the three main volcanoes in Washington state but they are only part of the 20 something volcaneos in the Cascade Volcanic Arc, which extends from Northern Cali through Oregon, Washigton, all the way to British Columbia.

The Cascade Volcanic Arc, which is part of the Ring of Fire, is caused by the subduction of the Juan de Fuca, Explorer, and the Gorda Plates traveling under the North American Plate.
en.wikipedia.org...
(A lot of good info there)

Those oceanic plates are heavier than the North American Plate, so they sink under N.A. plate. This then traps some magma between the oceanic plates and N.A plate as it decends into the Mantle. That magma could be similar to a caldera chamber, but it is not a super volcano. It is just a magma chamber.

Here's a good picutre showing how that happens.
en.wikipedia.org...:Cascadia_earthquake_sources.png

The earthquakes that occur off shore are actually the fault location. So that would be the beginning spot of where the oceanic plates are pushed under the N.A. plate and most of the quake movement occurs.
en.wikipedia.org...:Cascade_Volcanic_Arc.jpg

(Err the two pics I linked are found in the first link. The first linked pic is the third picture on the left going down. And the second linked pic is the second picture on the right going down.) I've got to learn how to up load pics or fix the pictures I link.


[edit on 15-3-2010 by tooo many pills]

Here's a good link for us PNW'ers

earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca...

Good thread, btw...

reply to post by tooo many pills


When you break it all down like that, it makes sense. I am hoping that it is just that...several different things happening somewhat independant of each other. I am just someone who hates coincidences and I have come to expect that when something seems related, it usually is. I hope I am wrong here though.

Here is another article about the newly found volcano. It states it is about 200 miles offshore from Greys Harbor and is 10,000 feet below the surface. Wow. I can't find an actual map of where it is, perhaps someone else can. Here is the link

Here is another site I came across in my search. Very interesting:
link

Edited to correct my miles vs feet typo!

[edit on 16-3-2010 by westcoast]

reply to post by westcoast


Fine, I'll go first.


So what.!!!!!!!

That's earth. Those scientists have theories, and those are theirs'. If they want to put their names on papers' that say such things, thats' on them. Cashing in on peoples' fears isn't very smart. Attaching your name to theories that may never be proven as fact is not smart either.

It is nothing to worry about, really. These scientists aren't the new einsteins of our time.



I want to thank you about posting the article about the underwater volcano, though. I hadn't read it until then. Like they said, no surprise, 90 percent of the ocean floor hasn't been explored yey. Nice thread, I just don't think it is anything to worry about. I don't see to many other scientists rushing to support the claims of those other scientists'.

Here's a good article for your thread.
seattletimes.nwsource.com... 17m.html
seattletimes.nwsource.com...
Here's another, not as good as the one above.

www.komonews.com...


Maybe you won't be around in 25 thousand years when the big one hits. huh?


[edit on 15-3-2010 by 517.101]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by 517.101]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by 517.101]

reply to post by 517.101


Thanks for your input! You make a good point. There are some in the scientific community that support the magma chamber theory and many who do not. It is by no means proven, and I agree that no one should get too excited about things.

I'm hoping to pool some minds that are more educated than my own, and maybe disprove the theory.

I tried your first link and it didn't work, unfortunately. I hadn't heard about the volcano until recently either. Fascinating stuff!

reply to post by westcoast


I got the first link to work, try it now.

I remember watching B rated prime time back in the early nineties. On the show "unsolved mysteries" or something similar, I remember seeing what featured a person who said they had a vision and a prediction of the west coast being shaken off the rest of the continent. (and by by it went)

Suddenly, I'm starting to remember all these things I heard way back when, before it was 'more popular', and when people didn't have sources. (other than visions)

And now there are findings for questioning our safety (I live in the Willamette Valley) based on physical evidence around the coast.

Sidenote: saw the preview for "Harry Brown" while typing this. It's going to be a must-see in this house!