New moon for earth and a first ever hurricane for S. Brazil? Yellowstone

http://www.halfpasthuman.com/HPHUE_HAZARDS.htm

top three links all from today.. and really really really odd weather here in PNW at the southern edge of Puget Sound. THis is a NOVEMBER style storm here, not a March rain bringer....strange stuff. And 3 sisters in Oregon is now shaking in sympathy to Yellowstone...

http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/WEBICORDER/GREEN/HUO_EHZ_UO.2004032500.html



Strange stuff, is it friday the 13th?

Uh.... Not only does the link not say anything to that effect, but come on here: There's nothing AT ALL strange about VERY SMALL earthquakes occuring in an earthquake zone, especially with foci under volcanoes....

it is very unusual to have exact magnitude matches of p-waves start at two separate, magma loaded areas, with only a one or two millisecond distance between the wave starting. Almost as though both are starting from the same source, it could also be though, that 3 sisters is now linked through a magma flow, to Yellowstone. That also explains it. Living just north of 3 sisters, and having lived through St. Helens, I ain't too anxious to see 3 large volcanos in Oregon link up with the largest caldera/volcano on the planet, Yellowstone.

That image is from Yellowstone, not from Three Sisters.

Also, it's not possible for Three Sisters and Yellowstone to be linked "through magma flow," as it would be seen seismically. Unfortunately for your idea, the Yellowstone plume is very well mapped, and is in no way connected to the Cascadia Subduction Zone.....

The earthquake swarms are HOURS apart.

This first image, from Yellowstone. There is an earthquake swarm starting at around 9:00 AM MST on 25 March.


This next image is from Three Sisters at the exact same time, 8:00 AM PST 25 March. You'll notice there's a rather massive LACK of earthquakes at that time.



What you linked to was an earthquake swarm starting around noon, and lasting 'til around 7:00 PM PST the previous day.

What were you saying about miliseconds!?

the USGS has actually mapped the flow of magma in the earth? All they know about Yellowstone is the caldera support structure. If one looks to the geologic analysis you discover that Utah and or LVC (Long Valley Caldera in CA) are most frequently sited as being source flows for Yellowstone. There is also the theory that Yellowstone is a hot-spot (i.e. hole) similar to the hot-spot which created Hawaii.

Further, note that NO subduction zone has EVER been found on earth. True there are places where supposedly/Theoretically there are SUPPOSED to be subduction zones, however, the tectonic plate theory holds that subduction zones MUST have these 9 specific criteria...and no place on earth has even more than 3 of such criteria.

Futher, there is absolutely NO evidence for subduction zones creating land forms such as mountains (one of the 9 criteria). In fact, Rockies, Andes, Himalayas, Cascade Range, Sierra Nevada range, ALL have a completely different creation structure that argues against subduction zone creation.

Further, the mechanism of subduction theoretically *(should it actually exist), is supposed to work on a creep factor, where as in the last 4 geologic surveys of both the Cascades, and the Rockies, much evidence was found that these ranges were created in the course of less than 72 HOURS with the current thinking being that the Rockies were lifted up in toto in more or less about 8 hours.

Further, the newest range on the planet, the Andes, especially in the Massif Paine, show that these mountains may well have taken less than 4 hours to rise up over 11 thousand feet.

Tectonic activity as a method/force for earth changes is an old, dead theory with virtually no proof available to support the original contentions. Further, the catestrophic model has tons and tons of evidence laying about all over that in fact this is THE mechanism for such earth movements.

Not that your unwillingness to examine evidence outside the discredited mainstream is here or there. Mountains don't rise up a millimeter per year.....

nor do subduction zones exist...at least we have been looking for one for years, and have not discovered any.

Further, where I am, less than 9 miles away from the epicenter of the Nisqually quake is supposed to be a subduction zone. However, the whole area including the part that was supposed to be sinking below the other plate, ALL of that rose up several inches during the quake and there is now evidence that the WA state sea coast expanded and ROSE during that quake. So much for subduction zone....

By the way, the links were NOT snapshots, are are live, so they are self updating. No wonder about the hours difference...

and you really believe that the USGS has actually mapped the flow of magma in the earth?

I don't think it, I know it. I've seen the images and the data.

All they know about Yellowstone is the caldera support structure.

Sorry, but that's just not true, unless you're only looking at texts from oh.... 1906....

If one looks to the geologic analysis you discover that Utah and or LVC (Long Valley Caldera in CA) are most frequently sited as being source flows for Yellowstone.

I've NEVER heard that.

There is also the theory that Yellowstone is a hot-spot (i.e. hole) similar to the hot-spot which created Hawaii.

A hot spot, more properly called a mantle plume, is not just a "hole," but a plume of hot rock cutting into the crust, coming from deep in the mantle.

Further, note that NO subduction zone has EVER been found on earth.

LOL, try looking at a map! Any place where you see a line of active andesitic volvanoes with a deep submarine trench on one side, you have a subduction zone. See the Andes, the Cascades, The Sierra Nevada, The Absorakas, the Alutians, Japan, the Phillipines, Kamchatka, etc. All of these are volcanoes caused by subduction zones.

True there are places where supposedly/Theoretically there are SUPPOSED to be subduction zones, however, the tectonic plate theory holds that subduction zones MUST have these 9 specific criteria...and no place on earth has even more than 3 of such criteria.

Can you say what those nine criteria are? All of them have a submarine trench, andesitic volcanoes, blueschist basement rocks, warping of the plate causing forarc and backarc basins, and accretionary prisms. This is seen universally.

Futher, there is absolutely NO evidence for subduction zones creating land forms such as mountains (one of the 9 criteria). In fact, Rockies, Andes, Himalayas, Cascade Range, Sierra Nevada range, ALL have a completely different creation structure that argues against subduction zone creation.

Of the ranges you listed, only two are on an active subduction zone (Cascades and Andes). The Sierra Nevada were created by a subduction zone during the Cretaceous, but have since been highly altered by the Basin and Range Province, and the Faralon Plate has been almost entirely subdicted. All the others are created by non-subduction related processes.

What's funny though is that the Andes, Cascades, and the Sierra Nevada all look the same....

Further, the mechanism of subduction theoretically *(should it actually exist), is supposed to work on a creep factor, where as in the last 4 geologic surveys of both the Cascades, and the Rockies, much evidence was found that these ranges were created in the course of less than 72 HOURS with the current thinking being that the Rockies were lifted up in toto in more or less about 8 hours.

What are you talking about? Do you have any data to back up the 72 hours claim? Who did the surveys and where were they published? And your 72 hour Cascade "theory" is complete bullshit as can be witnessed inside the Mt St Helens crater, where you see the slow (by your standards) expansion of the dome, over the last 24 years....

Further, the newest range on the planet, the Andes, especially in the Massif Paine, show that these mountains may well have taken less than 4 hours to rise up over 11 thousand feet.

The Andes are not the newest range on the planet, but in any case, WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS INFORMATION!!!???

Tectonic activity as a method/force for earth changes is an old, dead theory with virtually no proof available to support the original contentions. Further, the catestrophic model has tons and tons of evidence laying about all over that in fact this is THE mechanism for such earth movements.

Show me the data.

Not that your unwillingness to examine evidence outside the discredited mainstream is here or there. Mountains don't rise up a millimeter per year.....

Discredited mainstream? LOL! We have satelites watching mountains and they ARE rising and moving just millimters per year. We have SEEN plates moving. The data is all there. Catastrophism was discredited as nonsense over 200 years ago, because the data all suggest otherwise!

nor do subduction zones exist...at least we have been looking for one for years, and have not discovered any.

Again, look at a map. Line of andesitic volcanoes on a blueschist basement with a submarine trench of the coast.

Further, where I am, less than 9 miles away from the epicenter of the Nisqually quake is supposed to be a subduction zone. However, the whole area including the part that was supposed to be sinking below the other plate, ALL of that rose up several inches during the quake and there is now evidence that the WA state sea coast expanded and ROSE during that quake. So much for subduction zone....

I thought you lived just north of Three Sisters? In any case, the area that is sinking (well actually sliding under, not sinking) is the OCEAN FLOOR, not anything on land. Often times during earthquakes caused by faults (not subduction) as the Nisqually Quake was, land does sink or rise a number of inches. You might be familiar with the term fault scarp.... What do you mean the Washington State seacoast expanded? Did it rise? Stretch? What? Your sentance doesn't make sense.

AND AGAIN, WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE DATA?

And here's a diagram of a subduction zone, see no sinking.



By the way, the links were NOT snapshots, are are live, so they are self updating. No wonder about the hours difference...

Uh, sorry, but I looked through the catalogue they had, and found the links to the Earthquake swarm you thought was miliseconds apart, and they were actually hours apart. You realise that the times listed on the left side of the sheet are HOURS, not seconds right? Nothing happened at Three Sisters during the Yellowstone earthquake swarm, and vice versa....

A few months ago, I got a curious CD with a "radical new theory" of geology. Basically, this fellow was proposing that all of the continents were catastrophically moved into place in the course of less than an hour, probably by an asteroid or comet strike in the Indian Ocean.

There was a heavy religious subtext, but I didn't look deeply into it for the inevitable bible verses. I suspect Junker's arguments come from a similar, but probably more secular, source.

There's a ton of anomalous data in all of the natural sciences, and it's easy to cobble together very dramatic theories. In geology, the best "hare-brained" theory I've seen is the Expansionary Earth theory, which holds that plate tectonics is a wrong interpretation of what is really happening -- that the Earth is slowly inflating like a balloon. A significant amount of the EE evidence comes from problems with theories versus observations of subduction zones. James Maxlow (the first link), a student of S. Warren Carey, also goes into some detail on the problems of orogenesis, and covers recent geodetic measurements from the GPS satellites that support the EE theory.

Some Expanding Earth links for your reading pleasure:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/
http://www.expanding-earth.org/
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/HomePage.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm
http://www.geologynet.com/tectonics1.htm (critical)
http://www.triplehood.com/triplehood/expa.htm

As you can see, there has been some actual geological science put into the theory, not just the usual trance channeling and Zecharia Sitchin re-writes.

I don't present this as a view of "What I Believe". I tend to "believe" nothing, but I'll listen to any argument, no matter how outlandish. The Expanding Earth proponents have made the best arguments outside the "mainstream" I've ever heard. But the "mainstream" is the mainstream because it has made better arguments than the challengers.

Who knows, maybe it is possible to raise a mountain chain in four hours. I wouldn't bet money on it, but stranger things have been discovered. Meanwhile, I'll continue to accept that mountain-building takes quite some time.

--bkl

I heard about the hurricane earlier today and I thought that it sounded weird. It is weird. A hurricane in an area that does not get hurricanes is important. It's supposed to make landfall soon (within the next 12 hours). I wonder what kind of damage it will do there, since they don't usually have to worry about storms like this? I hope they are prepared. But it sure is strange.