It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Something Is Happening At Glacier Peak, Washington NOW (1/25/11)

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:01 AM
It looks like the Ring of Fire is activating. Time for all hell to break loose!

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:12 AM
reply to post by Phantom28804

I found it really interesting that the day after the msm in the UK started reporting "startling changes at Yellowstone" they stop giving us info on volcanoes? They have also stopped giving info on solar activity, that happened a week or so ago. Just after I read about a huge looking tear on the surface of the sun.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:17 AM
reply to post by serenecalamityz

Please keep in mind that RSOE is just ONE source for this information. I haven't had time to look into all the other sources, but we can't get too concerned if it is just RSOE.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by KamiKazeKenji

I find it interesting that one ATS member prophesied the discovery of fusion power correctly, and then went on to talk about Yellowstone erupting... and now there is a lot of talk about volcanoes erupting in the Pacific Northwest. I am having trouble finding up-to-the-minute seismograph info, going back to look over the links I guess.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:47 AM
Do you have family that lives far away?

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:58 AM
reply to post by serenecalamityz

you do realise that the info of the daily is mainly based upon a research published in December 2010 right?

source: Yellowstone Plume, Hotspot, Teton Fault, and Wasatch Front Earthquake Research and PDF

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:11 AM

were are all gonna dieee!!!!!

oh wait .. we were all doing to die anyway. my bad

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:28 AM

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
no to much activity to be just one volcano i think it has more to do with the fault zone yes it could make a volcano be come more active but the depth and wave is more fault zone look at Ca, and then the big yellow spot (square at the coast ) of WA? OR? cant remember which one then look east UT and ID had some shakers as well.

We know that the Earth's climate is changing and any shift in poles may have an affect on the fault zones moving too. The biggest fault is the San Andreas fault of CA and any moving here would have a massive impact on the continent.

Btw, I read this article from Canada trying to link in this theory as quoted below:

GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE AND NATIVE AMERICANS warming-debate-and-native-americans.html

Weather patterns and seasons are changing, magnetic fields are moving as well as ocean currents, plants, insects, marine life, and animals, are all feeling the effects.

My Hopi friends, (whose village of Old Oraibi is the oldest continuously inhabited community in the United States), tell me that when the ice melts on our North and South Poles, the loss of weight will cause the earth to vibrate like a dog getting out of the water.

Many earthquakes, volcanic irruption’s, and tsunamis will occur at this time. Scientist say, “When the ice is removed, it appears the underlying land would rebound, and the earth’s axis of rotation defined by the North and South Pole would actually shift about one-third of a mile, also affecting the sea level at various points.” [Peter Clark in his report to the journal Science.]

My Hopi friends in their creation story, tell me that the shift will be much larger and the poles will travel a much greater distance.

So I think the important thing to take away from all of this is to keep atop of any new evidence of activity coming from the volcanos, fault zones, climate change, and pole shift effects. Only then can we string any conclusion together.

I also found a video on what the Earth would look like should the poles shift by 20 degrees. Quite interesting.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:44 AM
What helps us determine that a volcano might possibly erupt soon?
Seismic activity.

So, I would suggest anyone that lives near a seismically active volcano to just move out of the way.
I have been to Mt St Helens, only a few years after it erupted. I saw what it did. It was utterly amazing.

So, if Glacier Peak is capable of an equal or greater release of energy, I highly suggest you get outta it's way.

It may take another 150 years to wake up, but hey, better safe than sorry.

This seismic activity is a warning sign, a red flag. It may be a false alarm but we don't know that yet.

The ring of fire is always extremely active, and so this comes as no real surprise.

It's like living in Florida, you will eventually get hit by a hurricane. Or in California on the coast, you will eventually feel an earthquake.

No place is truly "safe", but some places are indeed safer than others.

So don't hang out down range of this bad boy. Move outta the way I say.

Play it safe.

But remember, if this suckers gonna blow, we will probably have many more warning signs popping up over the next few weeks or months. This is almost certain.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:12 AM
OP are there maps to the seismo graphs you posted that correlate directly?

PNSN has good data that correlates to maps and isn't flagging anything major at the moment.

up to date info:
edit on 26-1-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

Cascade area most recent update: normal
edit on 26-1-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

daily updates for Glacier Peak and other PNSN daily updates:
edit on 26-1-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

the graphing on the OP seismo graphs looks like it could correlate more likely to Meteor Boom rather than earthquake / volcanic activity.
edit on 26-1-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

examples of interesting events, links to previous webicorder graphs:
edit on 26-1-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

current webicorder graphs at Glacier Peak (normal):

edit on 26-1-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:21 AM
reply to post by Dumbass

No I hadn't realised thank you for pointing it out. I was just intrigued as to why rsoe would stop with the volcanic and solar data. When it seems more and more msm are finding a correlation with sun and earth activities. Cheers though

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:28 AM
We are not feeling any effects of activity in Spokane right now. Just very foggy and still. I was told once that Spokane is basically a stretch of very old lava plain though, so I guess I will find out soon enough!

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:35 AM
reply to post by westcoast

That is true, sorry if I sounded like I was scare mongering. It was just the conspiracy freak in me

I am going to have a look around on other sites now and see whats occuring.
edit on 26-1-2011 by serenecalamityz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:40 AM
Hi everyone, this is my first post as a new member. Just my two cents here, but could this be just a rebounding of the earths' crust from the weight of the ice sheet? Up in the Northeast here we have small quakes all the time in the Adirondacks due to the crust and bedrock springing back from the last ice age.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:58 AM
so there are 2 volcanoes going off rite now? one in japan and one in washington?

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:04 AM
reply to post by westcoast

Hi Westcoast,

I've read the whole thread but I'm using your first post for reply because you quote from research that gives some data about its previous known eruptions. The most recent was around 300 years ago, and that just happens be quite close to the last known megathrust quake on the Cascadia fault on Jan 26, 1700 -- precisely 311 years ago today. Also, looking at data for previous major quakes in that region, I noticed some further correlations between possible times for prior Glacier Peak eruptions and known major quake events.

For example, in this .pdf document of a 2002 report entitled Understanding the Seismotectonics of the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Overview and Recent Seismic Work, the authors state (page 1):

Paleoseismic results also have shown that a large (M7.0 to 7.5) occurred on a crustal fault within the overriding North American plate in Seattle in about A.D. 900 to 930.

Later in the same document (page 4) and in reference to megathrust events along the Cascadia fault zone, the authors state:

Within the limits of radiocarbon dating, paleoseismic evidence indicates past events occurred in the following time intervals (years before present): 300, 900-1300, 1130-1350, 1500-1700, 2400-2800, 2800-3300 and 3300-3500. The average recurrence time between these events is 500 to 540 years, but time intervals between individual events could be as little as 100 to 300 years and as much as 1,000 years.

Further, they state (page 5):

It is now accepted that M9.0 earthquakes occur on the Cascadia subduction zone with an average recurrence time of 500 to 600 years. Moreover, because of evidence for intervals of as little as 300 years between these great earthquakes, the region may now be entering a period of potential activity after the 1700 event.

Just to clarify in case anyone is puzzled by the seeming discrepancy in averaging times, there are two sets of data they are assessing. One is the average time between megathrust events, which typically exceed magnitude 8, while the second (quoted above) refers to megathrust events of magnitude 9.0 or greater. While these are less frequent, the opinion of these researchers is that the fault line could produce a magnitude 9.0 quake (basically at any time from now on), as sufficient time has now passed since the last one of that magnitude.

Now, here's the possible tie-in to Glacier Peak. It had an eruption about 300 years ago. The last megathrust (M9.0 or bigger quake) occurred 311 years ago. Granted, this single example could be discarded as coincidental and of no actual relevance, but there's more. According to the document that Westcoast linked to (here):

Known eruptive episodes at Glacier Peak during the past 15,000 years. Each episode (depicted by a single icon) represents many individual eruptions. The ages of these episodes, in calendar years before present are corrected from dates based on a radiocarbon time scale. The uncorrected radiocarbon ages for these episodes, which appear in some publications, are 11,200, 5,100, 2,800, 1,800, 1,100, and 300 years before present.

Note the data for ages for its eruptive episodes and compare these with the quake time/age data I've given:
300 y.a. versus 311 y.a.: the mag 9.0 (or bigger) megathrust event on the Cascadia Subduction Zone
1,100 y.a. versus the Mag. 7.0 -- 7.5 quake in Seattle around 900 -- 930 A.D. -- ie, 1,100 y.a. and
1,100 y.a. versus the second and third most recent megathrust Cascadia events of 900-1,300 and 1,130-1,350 y.a.
1,800 y.a. versus the fourth most recent megathrust event of around 1,500 to 1,700 y.a. (Not such a strong correlation but allowing for some variations in dating, still quite close.)
2,800 y.a. versus the fifth most recent megathrust event of around 2,400 y.a. and the sixth of 2,800 - 3,300 y.a.

It's generally well accepted by the scientific community that the range of mountains and volcanoes in that region are (at least in part) being built by the subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate beneath the Nth American plate. While plate theory is still just a theory (and far from perfect), it is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

It's also not unreasonable, then, that increasing activity of volcanoes in that region might be an indicator of changes occurring in the subducted plate material (magma) and could therefore be a harbinger of either an impending megathrust event on the Cascadia fault zone itself, or else a major quake in regions like Seattle (for example). This does not have to mean that a major quake is imminent, but it seems to me that based upon the time/age data, there is a possible causative link between the larger quake events and the past activity of the volcano in question. As the research on past eruptions for all volcanoes in the regions is doubtless far from complete, further research may either show stronger correlations, or alternatively tend to show no specific time-causative link at all.

Anyway this post is long enough, so I'll leave it there and see what you all think.

edit on 26/1/11 by JustMike because: typos

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:07 AM
looks like minor activity, especially in comparison to known active zones:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

True, it does look minor, but what gets shown on maps in respect of actual quakes doesn't represent the total picture of what may be happening in a given area in relation to seismic and possible volcanic activity. That's the basic point that the OP (Westcoast) is making. While earthquake seismic traces for the region are quite minimal and not at all alarming, there are other traces on some webicorders in the region that may be indicating volcanic activity, and these traces (if they are not of actual quakes) don't get shown as events on quake maps.

There is also the problem of trying to identify slow-slip events, as they can last several weeks and do not show on normal webicorders. In fact they are generally identified by other methods, like Very Large Array gps systems such as PANGA (the Pacific Northwest Geodetic Array). The researchers use a wide range of resources and data to try and determine what is going on, and in complex regions like the one in question -- where there is not only a subduction fault to keep an eye on, as well as various volcanoes -- studying paleosiemic data and current volcanic activity can be more useful as indicators of what may occur than simply relying on the usual real-time siesmograph traces.

Best regards,

edit on 26/1/11 by JustMike because: Clarified some info and added link to the PANGA site.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:37 AM
Thanks for the info westcoast.

So, what's the precursor to an eruption? I think when St. Helens blew there were swarms of earthquakes prior as well as bulging, rockfalls & smaller melt offs. I would expect something similar, no?

I watched & heard St. Helens erupt from my deck & then later got stuck on 5 waiting to cross the Tuttle River. Was less than 60 miles as the crow flies for that one. It wouldn't bother me a bit if I got to see another one blow in my lifetime. I think I'm a bit closer this time but probably far enough from the Skagit where it wouldn't have a direct effect on me except for the ash.

I might go check out a couple of falls in the area past Rockport today or tomorrow as the weather is supposed to be sunny in the afternoon.
edit on 26-1-2011 by verylowfrequency because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:51 AM
CBC news is going to have a news item this morning on surviving an earthquake for those living in the lower mainland of BC. This is rare since Canada is relatively earthquake-free, the ones we do get are small. I'm looking for a link but i guess none will exist till this report gets aired.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in