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.


Whats going on at yellowstone?

page: 512
<< 509  510  511    513  514  515 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 06:37 AM
Is that another 2.8?

Nothing reported on usgs/equake yet

Edit: Ohh, close - reporting 2.7

[edit on 25-1-2010 by MoorfNZ]

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 06:38 AM
reply to post by MoorfNZ

Probably yes, M2.8-2.9 followed by a M2.4-2.5.
Give them some time!

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 08:02 AM
all I can say is WOW!!

over 1,000 earthquakes within a week and still shaking???

It seems like the whole earth is shaking right now though. There have been an awful lot of earthquakes lately.

very cool and thanks for all who participate here, I so love reading this thread!

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 08:04 AM
Since we touched on the subject of mine blasting being a possible cause of a portion of the activity that we're seeing, this vid gives a good perspective on the seismicity of such an event. OK, I'm fairly savvy with computers, why aren't my YouTube vids linking correctly?

[edit on 25-1-2010 by sageturkey]

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 08:37 AM
just when we thought it stoped , it picks up again wow thats my girl ...

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 08:55 AM

Isnt it like the more it rumbles the less danger there is of something major happening, Releasing energy a little bit at a time. Instead of all of a sudden BOOM!
reply to post by SLAYER69

The difference with what you experience in California and the earthquakes in Yellowstone is that yours is due to plate movement which results in plate failure.. At yellowstone we have a magma plume that is rising to the surface being driven by the disolved gases in the magma. This changes the chemistry of the magma making it less viscous and the gases pulling all to the surface are the large part of the earthquakes rather than any tectonic activity that you experience...
I find this deeply worrying what is happening at YNP at the mo, and even though i live in the UK, this event would be total and global in scale, causing massive tempreture decreases,cloud cover that stops UV thus plant life cannot photosynthesize and dies, which will kill of herbivores, then carnivores and us.. World wide starvation, contaminated water globally, a winter like we have never seen that would last for years.. So basically we would ALL be screwed...
I dont think most people appreciate the sheer size of the monster that is Yellowstone...

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:40 AM
Has there been an update on the outflow levels from Yellowstone Lake?
A scenario that i would be afraid of would be a larger earthquake fracturing rock below the lake and allowing water to drain towards the plume. Or from any of the arteries that feed the geysers. Water infiltrating the magma chamber would make for an extremely explosive event.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by Spypants

No update as the flow at the station is affected by ice.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:38 AM
seems that the soil in the caldera is trummeling as an lit on a boiling pan...
any sighs of harmonic yet???

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by Shirakawa
If there were to be a drastic drop in the water level in the lake, the ice on top would collapse, with cracking around the shoreline first.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:01 AM
Last source, The Yellowstone Insider, there have been 1100 quakes registered.

Please post if you find official number. YVO put out figures later this aftenoon. It's shameful they're restricting and limiting timely information from YVO and U0fU. A few paniced people and unwanted attention from Chris Sanders is not a justification.

Why shouldn't be panic and ask what if.
Does anyone know what the American plan is in case of an eruption?
Is there a plan?
I think there are no bad questions and attention from the press should give geologists a chance to educate. Instead they say everything normal go back to your daily routine and don't wonder what if?

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by Robin Marks

After thinking more about it, chances are that they've only counted them, but not located or assigned a magnitude yet and therefore they haven't put them in their public databases (as it's incomplete data).

However, I'm also aware (recently, more than ever) that they don't make everything public. I'm not saying that they're hiding data; just that they restrict access to full data to a limited public (employees, academic institutions, researchers, etc). That's disappointing in many ways, but that's how they work.

[edit on 2010-1-25 by Shirakawa]

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:21 AM
Robin, I am in total agreement with your frustration over mis/dis information. I imagine we will be hearing from YVO in a statement this afternoon if they follow their pattern this time.
I think of all the conspiracy theories/ideaologies the most accurate lie in the idea that we have no idea if the gov't has a plan for anything or what the plan may be. Sometimes I think it is best that these are not broadcast other times I think not. I do think that intelligent inquisitive people are far better off. We know the possibilities, we know where to look.

In the end we also know that plans, in the event of this kind of disaster, don't matter.

I am going to go get an adjustment and come back later and see what the "statement" is.

Meanwhile I am going to appreciate the beauty around me and try to live every day as if it was my last with respect to my appreciation of the people and the natural world around me. I've been doing that for years and I'm a happier person for it. Better than any gov't plan if you ask me.

Certainly can make for some intense anxiety if we let the power of the unkown get us. I think that this is unknowable even by the experts although I will take comfort in whatever they say. It's like the weather forecasters. They really can only make an educated guess and frequently that guess is wrong.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 12:40 PM
so we can say this is one of the greatest swarm's ever recorded and on an crucial spot aswell...???!!

in that case I can imagine that the data will be restricted to an modest group....

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 01:05 PM

The swarm earthquakes are likely the result of slip on pre-existing faults rather than underground movement of magma. Currently there is no indication of premonitory volcanic or hydrothermal activity, but ongoing observations and analyses will continue to evaluate these different sources.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 01:35 PM
New Press Release issued by YVO

The earthquake swarm on the northwest edge of Yellowstone Caldera that began on January 17, 2010 continues. There is still no indication of premonitory volcanic or hydrothermal activity.


Released: January 25, 2010 12PM MST

This release is a continuation of information updates building upon our three previous press releases on the ongoing earthquake swarm on the west side of Yellowstone National Park.

The University of Utah Seismograph Stations reports that a pair of earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 and 3.1 occurred in the evening of January 24, 2010 in Yellowstone National Park. The first event of magnitude 3.0 occurred at 11:09 PM and was followed by a magnitude 3.1 event at 11:21 PM. Both shocks were located around 9 miles to the southeast of West Yellowstone, MT and about 10 miles to the northwest of Old Faithful, WY. Typically, events of this magnitude are felt in and around the Park, but there were no reports of these particular events being felt.

These two earthquakes are part of an ongoing swarm in Yellowstone National Park that began January 17, 2010 (1:00 PM MST). The largest earthquake in the swarm as of 9 AM MST, January 25, 2010, has been a magnitude 3.8. There have been 1,271 located earthquakes in the swarm of magnitude 0.5 to 3.8. This includes 11 events of magnitude larger than 3, with 97 events of magnitude 2 to 3, and 1,163 events of magnitude less than 2. There have been multiple personal reports of ground shaking from observers inside the Park and in surrounding areas for some of the larger events (for felt reports, please visit Earthquake swarms are relatively common in Yellowstone.

The swarm events are likely the result of slip on pre-existing faults and are called tectonic earthquakes and are not thought to be caused by underground movement of magma. Currently there is no indication of premonitory volcanic or hydrothermal activity, but ongoing observations and analyses will continue to evaluate these different sources.

Seismic information on the earthquake can be viewed at the University of Utah Seismograph Stations:

Seismograph recordings from stations of the Yellowstone seismograph network can be viewed online at:

Anyone who has felt earthquakes in the swarm are encouraged to fill out a form on the USGS Community Felt reports web site:

This press release was prepared by the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory partners of the U.S. Geol. Survey, the University of Utah, and the National Park Service:

Update in Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) format

Emphasis mine.

[edit on 2010-1-25 by Shirakawa]

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 01:51 PM
This what I wrote to the YVO,

"Dear Dr. Peter Cervelli,

I'm sure you're aware of this page.

Prior to the swarm of 2008/09, quakes were immediately posted to the list. After the swarm, there was a policy change, yet there was no notification or explaination and the policy still says quakes update every 5 min or once an hour. Also before that year's swarm, the quakes were updated on weekends. That is not the case anymore.

I don't feel this is open information sharing.

Could you explain why the UofU and the YVO changed the policy.

R.L. Marks

Last week quakes weren't updated until late Monday afternoon. And after the updates stopped on Friday, they have no yet resumed."

This is the response I got from the YVO.

"My understanding is that earthquakes are added to that list based on
the following two criteria:


(1) the earthquake has been automatically identified and its
calculated magnitude is greater than 2.5


(2) the earthquake location has been determined and/or reviewed by a
human seismologist.

I believe the system is intended to add earthquakes to this list in
real time provided that one of the two criteria above is met.

I have not been watching the list carefully, so I can't say how often
it's being updated.

If you have been reading the UU press releases or YVO's information
statements, I'm sure you've noticed that there have been 1000+ quakes
located so far. I presume that as these quakes are reviewed by human
seismologists they will be added to the list. I don't know how long
it will take to go through the backlog of unreviewed events, but I'm
guessing it will be days to weeks, especially since new quakes keep
coming in as the swarm continues.

I assume it would be your preference that the automatic earthquake
locations be posted to this list (or perhaps another list). Many
people share your opinion. I believe the reason the seismologists
don't like this idea is that they are concerned about quality control.
On occasion, automatic locations can be badly wrong and taking them
at face value can be misleading.

After the current swarm is over, I can assure you that all the
information dissemination practices will be reviewed, and your opinion
and others like yours will be considered carefully.

Peter "

He didn't answer my question. He avoided my question about why the policy change and didn't even acknowledge it had. Reviews are part of the proces in calculating a quake. It should not be used as an excuse to delay information to the public in a timely manner. I am think about writing back and asking my questions more specifically and I'll push a little harder for a real answer.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 01:58 PM
What defines largest and second largest . . .
§ Second largest in sheer number
§ Largest recorded number ‘within’ YELL defined caldera

It may be in the realm of the swarm, of recorded swarms, with the second highest number of events documented which of course is notable. How many more events may have been recorded in 1985 with modern ‘improvements’ in monitoring equipment.

Is having a great number truly significant?

On a scale which measurement would be the most important quantifiable measure to determine swarm significance:

§ Number of earthquakes
§ Energy release of all earthquakes during swam period
§ Landform deformation (inflation/deflation)
§ Concentration of earthquakes within a land unit, i.e EQ number per square hectare
§ Landform modification (escarpment formation/modification)
§ Proximity to known fault systems
§ Proximity to geothermal vent systems
§ Modification of human behaviours
§ Number of comments per hour posted to ATS during defined swarm period
§ Alteration of geothermal venting (water volume, gas volume, gas concentration, gas composition, creation of new venting area)
§ Demonstration of something leading to a discovery, hypothesis, theory, or postulate new to science.
§ Indication of premonitory volcanic or hydrothermal activity

The numbers are fascinating, the recorder squiggles entertaining, but there may be much more . . .

If it made Steamboat Geyser erupt more frequently or even predictably I would be quite excited!

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Robin Marks

He doesn't directly reply to all your question but from what I understand, if there's been a policy change, that's because some seismologists want to be sure that earthquake data posted on the list (except for M2.5+ earthquakes which get posted immediately) have been quality controlled/properly reviewed (I don't know if you have noticed, but smaller earthquakes appearing there are all at least "version #2", while automatically added ones start from #0, then increase in version number as they get refined and then manually reviewed).

Probably a better question to ask would be just why [smaller] earthquakes aren't added to the list on weekends when they state they're working on them 24/7. That's clearly 8/5 (standard working time/days).

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by Arluk

I have to agree with you to a certain point.. I was thinking about it today at work.. The Yellowstone monster is a different kettle of fish compared to all other volcanoes on earth.. The shear size of the thing IMOPO requires different thinking particurly when talking about harmonic tremors...
At uni I wrote a paper about the Pinotubo eruption and the subsequent climatic changes.. In the back of my mind however was Yellowstone and its shear size and density; the fact that maybe different rules apply and maybe harmonic oscillations may differ because of the size... It really is is a different animal to the rest, with many unknowns.. That is why it is soo scary and needs to be taken seriously at all times.

new topics

top topics

<< 509  510  511    513  514  515 >>

log in