How much of this Geophysical Modelling Could You Believe?

Anthony Watts seems to be a little worried about the “Yellowstone Super Volcano” that has 4x more magma than once thought.

Wow!

Of course this discovery falls into the quagmire of geophysical modelling, in this case seismic modelling, and it’s plausible but like the gravity anomaly discussed here, how the heck do you perform an in-situ test? You can’t, so it’s down to belief and more importantly, experience.

The cause of this ‘super-volcano’ is interpreted to be a mantle plume or hotspot rising from a depth of at least 440 miles in the Earth’s mantle, with some estimates putting it at 1,800 miles.

Let’s rejig the numbers to something comprehensible like the metric system. So the hotspot is some 700 km down, and another guess is 2,880 km down.

What internal process causes mantle plumes? Heat, since that is all we have in our armory of geological processes. Since mantle plumes are essentially coincident with hot spots, one wonders what internal process operating in the mantle could generate a “hot-spot”. More on this below but first some observations.

If Yellowstone is a volcano, then it’s a little bit lost because the nearest subduction zone is way to the west. Whoops, what about Mt. St Helens? Isn’t that close by? No, it’s some 800km to the west.

Subduction zones? Yes, the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and interpreted to plunge deeply to the east.

So what do we make of the Yellowstone Super Volcano?

Is it caused by a mantle plume that is driven, err forced, by a hotspot? And given the homogeneity of the Earth’s core, just how can it develop discrete hotspots? And for that matter what is the energy source for these hot spots? Radioactivity? But given the standard model accretion model, modified with the Mercury Gobble Event, all radiometric decay will peter out over time, let alone concentrate itself in a small location and then reverse the laws of physics and accelerate to produce a near point source of heat.

I don’t think so. Rather I would interpret hotspots as a sort of thermal fossil-print of an earlier impact between the Earth and another cosmic body via massive electrical plasma short circuits. In this sense the Yellowstone Hot Spot is thus a recent battle wound between the Earth which I tentatively suggest was Venus during the 1st Century CE. However this provisional dating flies in the face of Velikovsky’s historical reconstruction where he interpreted their tales as occurring much earlier. It is a matter of historical fact that the Aztecs and Pawnee indians made sacrifices to ward off the morning star, even to the start of the 19th century by the Pawnees. Given that oral history cannot really stand the test of prolonged time, we necessarily should place any such myths or stories to the recent and not so much the distant past.

The problem is that Charles Lyell stretched the geological time scale for political purposes, not scientific. Much as the present day use of climate science by government to achieve particular political goals.

Actually one could also suggest that it’s the gross denial of this 1st Century CE catastrophe by our present day catastrophists in the world’s major religions and climate fearers that seems to be driving their irrational behaviour.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to How much of this Geophysical Modelling Could You Believe?

  1. PeterMG says:

    There are several things in play here. Anthony Watts is a mainstream weather man/science commentator. He is also very American and feels the US needs to be the centre of attention.

    Due to his excellent work on the surface station audit and contemporary work on statistical maths by others, he knows there is no such thing as man-made global warming and its offspring Climate change. But he argues vehemently that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas when all the imperial evidence is that it is more likely to be more of an atmospheric cooler, but as always we can’t judge these things easily taking them in isolation. He also actively discourages any posts that may contradict this tenant of mainstream science. This gives him a problem.

    His efforts today to bring the truth to the masses on climate change are probably less effective today than they were in the early days despite the massive popularity of his blog and despite all the experts he has on agreeing with him. Watts does not seem to have the sceptical enquiring mind need for his role and prefers the cuddly quiet life. To my mind Watts has not understood 2 things; the political dimension, which is all about money and nothing else, and how science has been used because it is controlled by politians, and how individual scientist have been paid off and others duped because of the arcane nature of scientific research that looks at things an inch wide and 3 miles deep (and you will know who I’m quoting there)

    Ask anyone in the world to name the last super-volcano to erupt and the chances are they won’t know but will say Yellowstone anyway, simply due to all the hysterical science and docudrama’s that have been made about it. However Taupo in New Zealand is reputed to have erupted in 182 AD (VEI7) which in light of my recent reading could be an entirely different and much later date, and perhaps as a result of changing electromagnetic conditions as the comet approached from a far. But certainly Taupo and Toba (VEI 8) are far more recent eruptions at 26,000 and 74,000 years ago ??? than Yellowstone, at between 4.5 and 6 million years ago.

    But as you have pointed out, all these dispirit events don’t make much sense in the context of establishment science and it’s only when you look at all the physical evidence in conjunction with electric universe theory that a coherent picture emerges. I by no means think we have yet cracked it, but I’m going to enjoy the ride.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s