5 new earthquakes (largest 3.3 mag) hit Yellowstone

[Alhena]

Source: USGS

Magnitude 3.3
Date-Time Friday, January 09, 2009 at 18:17:31 UTC
Friday, January 09, 2009 at 11:17:31 AM at epicenter

Location 44.678°N, 110.254°W
Depth 0.2 km (~0.1 mile) (poorly constrained)
Region YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING
Distances 45 km (28 miles) SSW (213°) from Cooke City-Silver Gate, MT
54 km (34 miles) SE (138°) from Gardiner, MT
67 km (42 miles) E (88°) from West Yellowstone, MT
456 km (284 miles) NNE (17°) from Salt Lake City, UT


Read more: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/43.45.-111.-109.php

---

For those who have followed the Yellowstone quakes, after a week's rest following hundreds of quakes, a 3.3 mag quake hit today. Nothing to panic about, of course, but this may indicate that this swarm is not over with yet- the latest quake follows the northward drift of the quakes to date.

[Mojorabbit]

1. I'm following it

I have always been fascinated with volcanoes and earthquakes. Lots of action around the world these past few months.

[Hugin]

3. Me too.

I read over the past couple of days that seismic activity in Yellowstone often increases
at the same time there is an increase in southeastern Alaska.

I found that to be interesting.

[Warpy]

2. OK, that's in the bad spot

which is where the hot spot is drifting should the hot spot theory be correct. The North American Plate is drifting to the southwest, so the magma chamber will be to the northeast of the present caldera.

An eruption in the present caldera would likely be small. One under several miles of pristine rock over the new position of the hot spot would be catastrophic.

[Alhena]

4. Yes, which is why this is more worrisome than the 1985 swarm ...

the 1985 swarm was in the West Yellowstone area, which is not where any future super-eruption would be likely to start.

This earthquake swarm is still not *that* worrisome an event, but it's the most worrisome event since the 1959 Hebgen Lake earthquake in the park. Particularly when you consider the record uplift in the last few years. It's got my attention.

[goforit]

7. So this epicenter that just occurred is a the new hotspot?

I heard that the information about the swarm of mini-quakes was being hushed up.
Is this true?

[Alhena]

8. There has been unusually sparse press coverage, but I tend to think ...

that this involves editorial decisions not to panic people rather than an outright USGS conspiracy. Of course, the USGS downplays things in Yellowstone as a matter of course, but that's understandable when you consider the panic factor.

I don't have a big beef with the USGS on this, but at the same time I realize that any statements which they make should be understood with the PR factor in mind. At least they make the live seismograms available to the public, so one can assume that a geologist somewhere would sound the alarm if there were true harmonic tremor or something alarming like that showing.

[Warpy]

22. Hushed up? Nah

but we really have no idea what a supervolcano looks like just before it blows. Toba was the last one and it was some 75,000 years ago.

Consider this, though. If it blows, we'll have crop failures worldwide over the next couple of years. There will be little to eat and the old, the young and the sick will all die. Many people in their prime will die. It will be one of those scenarios where the living could come to envy the dead.

I'll be dead, of course, since NM is well within the ash cloud distribution pattern. Several feet of volcanic ash will smother us quite efficiently.

[shanti]

23. you'll probably

"only" have a foot of ash. i checked out the supervolcano website that shows what the ash pattern would be. i'm in norcal, still within the parameters of the ashfall, but the site said one foot. the closer you are, the deeper the ash.

of course, that's someone's educated guess. :shrug:

[pokercat999]

26. Kinda like Y2K ? nt

[MnFats]

5. it's going to blow. the big one. volcanic eruption, i mean.

read a couple of pieces about this that didn't seem too hysterical but made it sound dire.
i remember reading about the normally docile New Madrid Fault getting involved in some cluster that could run from Mo/Ark to Yellowsone and thence, the west.

[Stuart G]

32. I agree..I read or heard about the possible eruption once,

perhaps 17 years ago. It was in the park, and the I can't recall if it was part of a lecture, or written on some piece of literature. But the consequences of a really big eruption could rival Mt St Helens, or the quake at the New Madrid Fault in l810?..There are people living near there, and it wouldn't be pretty. Very very bad..

[Marie26]

6. So, who here has seen the "Supervolcano" show?

*raises hand* It's some scary stuff.

[Alhena]

9. Very good movie- it's available on youtube for those interested

[Alhena]

12. Update- *5* new earthquakes showing now

The swarm appears to be back.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/43.45.-111.-109_eqs.php

MAP 1.5 2009/01/09 18:57:16 44.666 -110.335 1.0 50 km ( 31 mi) SW of Cooke City-Silver Gate, MT
MAP 3.3 2009/01/09 18:17:31 44.678 -110.254 3.1 45 km ( 28 mi) SSW of Cooke City-Silver Gate, MT
MAP 1.4 2009/01/09 18:10:39 44.669 -110.265 2.4 46 km ( 29 mi) SW of Cooke City-Silver Gate, MT
MAP 2.4 2009/01/09 18:08:13 44.669 -110.254 4.2 46 km ( 29 mi) SSW of Cooke City-Silver Gate, MT
MAP 1.1 2009/01/09 18:06:02 44.669 -110.256 2.2 46 km ( 29 mi) SSW of Cooke City-Silver Gate, MT

[Marie26]

15. Do you seriously think this is related?

Or is it fairly typical to have minor earthqueake "swarms" around Yellowstone?

[Alhena]

16. Minor swarms are typical, this is the second largest swarm ever ...

after the 1985 swarm, and the 1985 swarms were in a less worrisome area of the park as far as volcanic activity. So this is the most significant swarm ever in my mind since the volcano is what we really care about with Yellowstone.

My honest opinion is that there is obviously some significant geologic force at work here causing all these earthquakes. The obvious candidates are the movement of magma and the movement of hydrothermal fluids. It very likely will not result in a volcanic eruption, but there's something significant going on here that merits close study.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. Yellowstone Lake Earthquake Swarm Summary as of 8 January 2009

Swarms are normal at Yellowstone
The recent swarm is well above typical activity at Yellowstone. Nevertheless it is not unprecedented during the last 40 years of monitoring. Earthquake swarms within the Yellowstone caldera are typical, with magnitudes occasionally ranging above 4.0. The 1985 swarm on the northwest rim of the caldera lasted for three months, with earthquakes up to M4.9 and over 3000 total events recorded.

The magnitudes of earthquakes in this swarm range from zero to 3.9. Earthquakes with magnitudes less than 3.4 are generally not felt by people unless they are very shallow and you are standing very close to the epicenter (point on the earth's surface above the hypocenter). For perspective, earthquakes of magnitude 3.4 to 4.5 are often felt and there were multiple reports of felt earthquakes during this swarm. A magnitude 5 or greater is generally required to produce damage to buildings or other structures.There are several causes for earthquakes
Earthquakes at Yellowstone are caused by a combination of geological factors including: 1) regional stress associated with normal faults (those where the valleys go down relative to the mountains) such as the nearby Teton and Hebgen Lake faults, 2) magmatic movements at depth (>7 kms or 4 miles), and 3) hydrothermal fluid activity caused as the groundwater system is heated to boiling by magmatic heat.

At this time, no one has noted any anomalous changes in surface discharges (hot springs, gas output, etc.).

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/publications/2009/09swarm.php

[alfredo]

30. Here's a map of the Yellowstone Caldera

[Lucky 13]

11. Not that I'm a geologist or seismologist or anything....

but doesn't the shallow depth indicate that this is not something of TOO much concern? It's less than a tenth of a mile deep...

Wouldn't a precursor of "the big one" be of more significant depth?

[Alhena]

13. Shallow quakes are more likely to be hydrothermal ...

as opposed to magma, but if you ever did get a shallow quake caused by magma then that would obviously be of extreme concern. The magma under Yellowstone is only several miles deep.

[Lucky 13]

14. So is it reasonable to postulate that this is a hydrothermal occurance...

and therefore nothing to get too concerned over? Do we have any reason to believe this is caused by magma?

And I thought lots of little quakes is a relatively GOOD thing. Doesn't it release the built up pressure in short-bursts instead of letting it build up until it unleashes a monster quake?

I'm a biologist and only slightly familiar with geological principles... sorry for all the questions...

I'm just tempted to believe that all of this concern over the Yellowstone quakes is probably more because too many people have seen those "Yellowstone Super-Volcano" documentaries on Discovery lately vs. this series of small, shallow quakes being anything to worry about.

[Alhena]

17. Here's an independent geologist's best guess on what his happening ... link

I always like to hear from independent geologists who are qualified but who aren't obligated to always give the USGS's "nothing to see here" interpretation.

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=9628287&nav=menu554_11_11_6

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK - Some pretty interesting things have been happening at Yellowstone National Park since December 26. Over the last week, geologists have recorded more than 400 small earthquakes. Quakes in that number are called an earthquake swarm.

For a quake to do damage it has to be at least a 4.0 magnitude. None of the recent Yellowstone earthquakes have, but every one has happened in the same spot underneath Yellowstone Lake.

Robert Clayton has taught geology at Brigham Young University-Idaho for six years.

"When there's something really interesting happening, I post it on my office door so everyone can see," said Clayton.

Things are definitely interesting right now.

"That's quite a number of earthquakes," said the excited geologist. "The ones in bold type are of greater magnitude."

The incredibly long list represented 400 or more earthquakes that have happened under the lake.

"We think it's where more magma heat and steam escaped through cracks in the crust," said Clayton. "That's probably what's causing the earthquakes."

He said the last time Yellowstone saw this kind of activity was close to 20 years ago.

"What's interesting about this earthquake swarm is that it's in a very large and active volcano," described Clayton.

The professor has been monitoring the quakes through Yellowstone's website and BYU-Idaho's own seismograph machine. Although the U.S Geological Survey and the University of Utah -- two organizations responsible for monitoring the quakes -- haven't given an official explanation yet, Clayton has his own theory.

"It's probably a little bit of magma moving through fractures. There's also a lot of ground water under Yellowstone and some of the shallower earthquakes may be steam explosions and fractures underground,' said Clayton. "Those can have quite a force and send out shock waves that we record as earthquakes."

[hedgehog]

33. With regards to your charge that the USGC maintains a "nothing to see here"

interpretation (with the implication that the USGC is engaging in a massive cover-up), can you give us an example of a past attempted cover-up? That is, when is the past has the USGC concealed data and/or refused to follow the scientific theories of the time? I'd guess that it's rather difficult to cover up an earthquake. If anything, I'd say that the USGC errors on the conservative side because it does issue general alerts even though the science of predicting earthquakes is very shaky.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/parkfield/eq_predict.php

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topics/?topic=Prediction&topicID=53

[Hugin]

19. I'm no expert either, but, you've asked some interesting questions.

Yes, I would assume small quakes would indicate a reduction of stress. But, I also
assume the rule only holds true in a fault zone where the primary concern is earthquakes.

However, in the case of volcanic activity it would seem to me this seismic activity indicates
something is moving around under the area. Worst case would be magma, but, I've read most of
this type of activity under Yellowstone is caused by heated water.

Still?

I'm also interested in the series of small quakes moving diagonally across Utah from the
southwest corner up to the northeast. From what I understand there's a plate moving to
the north off the coast of Southern California and it appears to be shifting a little bit.

[HillWilliam]

20. I'm no geologist either, so, question

if magma had moved close enough to cause shallow quakes, wouldn't there be changes in the surface features, like those driven by gas and water? (Like the mudpots and geysers.) We'd notice that. I seem to remember (from sleeping in class, sorry!) that one of the signs of imminent eruption (of any sort of volcano) is a marked change in hydrologic features: more volume, less volume, changes in pH or clarity or temperature... things you wouldn't miss.

I could be wrong, subject to correction, but that's why I'm asking.

[Alhena]

21. Yes, we'd likely see those things, although the quakes have been under Yellowstone Lake

in the dead of winter, so it's harder to follow those kind of changes. The most recent quakes have migrated to the north of the lake, which should make it easier to determine whether the kind of changes you mentioned are taking place.

[jwirr]

18. I watch the RSOE EDIS emergency map all the time and I wish I knew

if all the earthquakes and volcanoes that are there are new or something different for this time. For instants the many Indonesia quakes that happened this month - new or something that happens on a regular basis? It appears that Alaska and the ME are very unstable places having minor earthquakes daily. I like this site but wish they would go further in their analysis. They are also showing the quakes from the above article.

[TK421]

24. Maybe it's the tripods from War of the Worlds getting ready to surface

now THAT would be cool :D

[jsmacdonald]

25. This is not a big deal

I track Yellowstone news as a daily hobby, compile it all, and post it to the internet.

These swarms are not really a big deal, but the hysterical reaction to it has grown quite hysterical.

Anyhow, if you want to know more from all sides, a lot of quite absurd, see http://www.yellowstone-online.com/newspaper.html.

[Alhena]

27. Name a more signifacant earthquake swarm in recent decades

the only possible candidate is the 1985 swarm, and that was northwest of the caldera. This one is within the caldera and thus is of greater concern. This swarm comes in the context of the greatest recorded uplift (in the last several years) of the caldera in 70+ years of keeping records. The magma chamber is clearly rising.

So if you're trying to suggest that this is a regular occurence at Yellowstone then you are wrong. It very likely won't lead to an eruption, but a hydrothermal explosion is very possible and an eruption is always possible.

[jsmacdonald]

28. Re:

Big earthquakes are a way of life in Yellowstone. The 1959 Hebgen Lake earthquake was 7.5, I believe. There was another large earthquake in the 1970s. I don't know how long the equipment has been in place to measure these swarms, but I have read that many suggest that they happen every couple of decades.

So, would I be surprised to see a big earthquake in Yellowstone? No. Would I be surprised if there's hydrothermal changes in Yellowstone? Obviously not - the geysers require earthquakes to keep plumbing going. Even subtle changes can create big changes in Yellowstone. Would I be surprised to see a volcanic eruption of any significant kind? You bet I would. The last one was 70,000 years ago; the last supervolcanic eruption was 640,000 years ago. No one has any idea when the next one would be, but the odds aren't good. Of course, anything is possible - the cow might jump over the moon - but possible and probable are two different things.

Now, a major earthquake might be a big deal, but in terms of Yellowstone and its history, not really ... an earthquake swarm, while uncommon, is not something that gets locals all that worked up.

The point of me saying it wasn't a big deal wasn't to say that by someone's measure, it isn't a big deal. The point is that the hysteria that's online suggesting the end of the world is imminent - by that measure, it's not a big deal. And, frankly, it's dull. Volcanoes, meteors, plagues, earthquakes - always the same fascination with the same mass disasters. And, yet, Yellowstone right now has real disasters going on - like what's been happening in recent years to the wild buffalo population, like the potential movement of Chronic Wasting Disease into the ecosystem, and on and on and on. But, none of those disasters are mass-sexy enough.

There are a number of earthquakes today; they are not in the same location as the others in the swarm. What does that mean? Who knows? I'm not going to lose sleep over it. A big earthquake would be fascinating and might change a lot of things in the park, but I have no reason to believe that even one of those is imminent. I'll be curious as I visit the park through the months to see what happens to the geysers. I'd love to see West Thumb active again or see new features arise. That would be cool, but that's par for the course at a magical place.

[Psephos]

31. Good post based on rational assessment rather than emotion n/t

[madrchsod]

29. the suspense is killing me.....

well the explosion of yellowstone will....ya, the end of the world as we know it...

[alfredo]

34. As if that would be a bad thing. Our fate means little in the scheme

of things.

[PA Democrat]

35. The Science Channel had a great show titled "When Yellowstone Erupts"

on yesterday afternoon. Scientists interviewed talked recent developments, but stated that they were pretty sure that a new eruption would NOT occur in our lifetimes. That was reassuring after they showed how devastating such an eruption would be given the estimated size of the magna chamber located under Yellowstone.