Vocanoes

Something missing this way comes …

This chap has done a great deal of work on educating his fellow man. The material is massive and effusive. The site has won awards and his CV is as long as your arm.

And it isn't right.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/index.html
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~vcamp/

What do I say to him? How do I go up against stuff like that?

Well first of all I am not at war with him or anyone else. I do get tired of banalities when my efforts are spurned. And it just happens I don't have the right answer.

I came across his site researching for a post on a similar effect to Ardent Nuee- volcanic fierball clouds: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.geo.earthquakes/browse_frm/thread/9dab4039a52c0541/e58116a5f5f3c4ba#e58116a5f5f3c4ba

This is what I was thinking earlier in the month:

Looks interesting on the North Atlantic chart at the moment:
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsfaxsem.html

967 going to 970+ for tornadic stuff especially with a Greenland high.
Note the mice.

I hadn't a clue what was going to happen but I knew that even if there was a no show, it would be something to learn from.

I forgot to mention the thing could go towards earthquakes if it deepens. And of course the south-eastern High looks woolly. Too far to the north I think.

I was still thinking in terms of tornadoes or earthquakes. Actually a couple of double 6's in the NEIC list would have been a hit for me.

It went thisaway:

"About 200 residents have been evacuated from their homes after a landslide split a hillside apart in the southern Italian town of Maierato.
The landslide, which caused power failure, could have been caused by heavy rains in the region, initial reports say."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8517378.stm

We've had some rain in this part of the world. We don't get many landslips though and when I saw from a search that there had been a number of them world wide this month I started piecing it.

+++++++

I don't know where I was going with this post. I knew the stuff I have isn't worth repeating. But I have to start somewhere.

+++++++

Lots of land slides this spell and a major eruptive event a soufrier I think. That's the problem with dirty data.

If I can't get it you can't have it.

I'm tired of dim wits still using the basic models initiated by Richardson and Bjerknes. They played their part but today the reliance on computing an absolutley nothing else has cemented Meteorology and ths eartyh science into its own dead end.

SOUFRIERE HILLS Montserrat 16.72°N, 62.18°W; summit elev. 915 m

MVO reported that during 5-12 February activity from the Soufrière Hills lava dome increased significantly. Activity was concentrated on the W side of the lava dome during the first part of the week then shifted to the N side on 9 February.

The Smithsonian merely collates news about volcanoes once a week and archives the reports. It isn't data in the strict sense as vulcanology isn't really a science. The material is updated Wednesday night my time (Wednesday evening theirs.)

On 11 February part of the lava dome collapsed leaving a large collapse scar on the NE flank. Pyroclastic flows traveled NE and then, along with pyroclastic surges, across the sea at several places on the E side of Montserrat.

Pyroclastic flow deposits covered several hundred meters of the coastline near the old Bramble airport, about 5 km NE. Pyroclastic flows also traveled NW into Tyers Ghaut and down the Belham valley as far a Cork Hill, 4 km NW.

An ash plume rose to 50,000 ft and drifted E and then SE. Ashfall occurred in NE Montserrat, SW Antigua (50 km NW), Guadeloupe (65 km SE), and Dominica (145 km SE). According to news articles, flights in and out of the region were temporarily suspended due to the ash plumes.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/index.cfm

Pyroclastic flows are airborne lava flows. There is no current explanation for them several attempts have been made to explain the phenomenon. It defies logic. But I hadn't seen the Smithsonian stuff until a day or so after seeing the reports and videos of landslides.

I'd time to think. Or refrain from thought?

I started to draw my own comclusions about the way that land slides. There is a phenomenon called the Gravity Wave that I think is much the same sort of thing. It turns out that I'm not the only one with that idea:

Gravity current
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fluid dynamics, a gravity current is a primarily horizontal flow in a gravitational field that is driven by a density difference. Typically, the density difference is small enough for the Boussinesq approximation [no idea what that is] []bto be valid.[/b] [And it seems I have no reason to let it upset me.]

Gravity currents are typically of very low aspect ratio (that is, height over typical horizontal lengthscale). [In other words they are thin, flat clouds.] The pressure distribution is thus approximately hydrostatic, [He means pneumostatic? And there is no such a thing. Statics is the behaviour of fixed columns or reservoirs.] apart from near the leading edge (this may be seen using dimensional analysis). Thus gravity currents may be simulated by the shallow water equations, with special dispensation for the leading edge which behaves as a discontinuity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_current

"Density difference" of course, is where I came in with this stuff but I had no idea it might lead to a correlation between ardent nuee and landslides -if it does.
And I rather think it does:

"Gravity currents occur at a variety of scales throughout nature. Examples include oceanic fronts, avalanches, seafloor turbidity currents, lahars, pyroclastic flows, and lava flows.

There are also gravity currents with large density variations -the so-called low Mach number compressible flows. An example of such a gravity current is the heavy gas dispersion in the atmosphere with initial ratio of gas density to density of atmosphere about 1.5-5."

I have no idea what all that stuff about mach number means. I know that when fluid flows reach silly velocities such unreal numbers crop up. They are of the Navier Stokes type and refer to the change from buffeting to streamlined wind. When they reach a certain point the stresses tip over.

A while back I read the stuff the Encyclopaedia Britannica had on the atmosphere. I thought it was absolut rubbish. I might have to rethink my dismissal of the article. Menatime:

Sonics.
Silly me. I soon forget the obvious.

Well at least I got it before the bloke from NCAR did. Or at least he failed to mention the acoustics of the theory if he did think of it.

I suppose I have to go and read the damned article again. I'm pretty sure he just fobbed us off with something along the line of world-spin.

He had explained the behaviour of the Hadley and Ferrel Cells as some sort of effect due to the rotation of the planet. (I switched off at that point. I still read it but my brain was in auto pilot. I can't remember anything else in the article.)

But the point of all the above is that there is a more likely explanation for the behaviour of mountains. And the explanation should be presented as supposition until the facts are verified.

All the knowledge at the moment is nothing more than opinion. It shouldn't be presented as fact.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Vocanoes

  1. Here is the offending chart that started me off: There is a sandwich of anticyclones but the southerly one isn't very strong. It faded over the next few hours and then the news of the landslide hit the TVs.More people are carrying cameras these days so the fairly rare capture is now becoming common. And with the availability of pictures, news bulletins will carry the news.Previously such stuff had to kill lots of people before it would be reported. (At the end of the news and only on a day when there was a shortage of filler.)

  2. There are strong indications that microbial life is widespread at depth in the crust of the Earth, just as such life has been identified in numerous ocean vents. This life is not dependent on solar energy and photosynthesis for its primary energy supply, and it is essentially independent of the surface circumstances.Its energy supply comes from chemical sources, due to fluids that migrate upward from deeper levels in the Earth. In mass and volume it may be comparable with all surface life. Such microbial life may account for the presence of biological molecules in all carbonaceous materials in the outer crust, and the inference that these materials must have derived from biological deposits accumulated at the surface is therefore not necessarily valid.Subsurface life may be widespread among the planetary bodies of our solar system, since many of them have equally suitable conditions below, while having totally inhospitable surfaces.One may even speculate that such life may be widely disseminated in the universe, since planetary type bodies with similar subsurface conditions may be common as solitary objects in space, as well as in other solar-type systems.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC49434/You can get a 5 page PDF download from the link. I'll have a stab at decoding it. If anyone from fornparts wants to decode it into their language and I can help please let me know.

  3. There is an alternative theory about the formation of oil and gas deposits that could change estimates of potential future oil reserves. According to this theory, oil is not a fossil fuel at all, but was formed deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic materials. The theory was first proposed in the 1950s by Russian and Ukranian scientists. Based on the theory, successful exploratory drilling has been undertaken in the Caspian Sea region, Western Siberia, and the Dneiper-Donets Basin.The organic materials which are found in petroleum deposits are easily explained by the metabolism of bacteria which have been found in extreme environments similar to Earth's mantle. These hyperthermophiles, or bacteria which thrive in extreme environments, have been found in hydrothermal vents, at the bottom of volcanoes, and in places where scientists formerly believed life was not possible. [Thomas] Gold argues that the mantle contains vast numbers of these bacteria.Gold persuaded the Swedish State Power Board to drill for oil in a rock that had been fractured by an ancient meteorite. It was a good test of his theory because the rock was not sedimentary and would not contain remains of plant or marine life. The drilling was successful, although not enough oil was found to make the field commercially viable.

    http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.htmlWhilst the last paragraph isn't an outright lie. It isn't the truth either.The Swedish experiment was sabotaged by the engineers or the chemists in charge and a cause of the problem was buried. When Gold was eventually supplied with a sample he had to analyse it using chemicals he found in the kitchen of a friend.Also some of the stupendous misconceptions in geology are slipped in as fact in the text. You don't have to struggle to find fault in that though. Consider:

    He has also been wrong, however; he was a proponent of the "steady state" theory of the universe, which has since been discarded for the "Big Bang" theory.

    The so called Big Bang is still just a theory but he is pilloried for not following it blindly.So who proved his earlier ideas wrong? How do we know the genesis of the universe isn't steady state? Whatever that is.The Big Bang Theory is daft. Unbelievable. So what was so wrong about the whatever of the other one?Not that I know much about either. What is the point of querying something unprovable and that can not possibly provide clothing, housing or food for the needy nor transport to luxury for the rich?Has any of it managed to enable the forecasting of volcanic events?Has it fleck!

  4. Posted: February 01, 20081:00 amJerome R. Corsi © 2010 WorldNetDaily.com

    A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a "fossil fuel" derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.The lead scientist on the study ? Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle ? says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

  5. Gold wryly noted that he was sure there had not been any "big stagnant swamps on Titan" to produce the biological debris that conventionally trained geologists think was required on Earth to produce oil and natural gas as a "fossil fuel." "If petroleum and natural gas are abiotic as we maintain in 'Black Gold Stranglehold,'" Corsi commented, "then the 'peak oil' fear that we are going to run out of oil may have been based on a giant misconception." "NASA has given us incontrovertible evidence that Titan has abundant inorganic methane." "If the scientists have ruled out that biological processes created methane on Titan, why do petro-geologists still argue that natural gas on Earth is of biological origin?" Corsi asked.

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675Abiotic and abiogenesis refer to the mechanical process that makes hydrocarbons. Personally I am not convinced that methane and the rest of it is produced by non living things.And I am not saying it isn't either.Why not both?Looking at pictures of deep sea vents its obvious that the generation of rocks by these things so called igneous rocks are the effluent of microbial activity. Why am I the only one to see it.It's not easy being a genius. And it doesn't help when you think they may be right when they shout: "Sit down, you bloody fool!" at you.So what if they are right?Buggerem!!The inner planets are composed of carbon rich understrata. The source of heat deep in the earth as far down as we are able to measure directly (about a couple of miles IIRC) does not come from the heat of creation.Nor does the heat of the sun come from compression produced by the gravity of the planet. But that is another bet nowhere.

  6. There is an article in Wikipedia about the mud flow in a gas rich area called Porong, Sidoarjo in East Java:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidoarjo_mud_flowIt's a story of corruption a double edged one worthy of an Hollywood plot with a minister of the environment also the owner of the offending company.The point is that looking for hydrocarbons seems to require drilling through a layer of limestone. Limestone is an impermeable rock and so any oils below it will be contained.But rock is not good at resisting stress. It is in fact kept stable by the weight of the stuff above it.Once the drill broke through, the only way to stop the top layer being removed was to cap the well. But it couldn't be capped as the drilling company never used safety casings.Water poured up from beneath the limestone and washed away the clay above the limestone.Once the layers had been removed or destabilised (a little technical this) wet mud no longer has a direct bearing on the column below. The mud spreads and pressure on the limestone drops.And that's not counting the millions of tons that have poured away in the last 4 years or so.Given time, limestone will heal itself. It forms patches like stalactites and stalagmites. Maybe that is what is intended with the blocks of concrete they tried to sink into the site.Anyway the disaster is a classical introduction into the behaviour of rocks. Rock is considered: Permeable, semi-permeable and impermeable.But it is all permeable in reality. The lintels on the temple at Stonehenge in Salisbury Plain, England and the tops of all the columns of all the ancient temples since, can only be so long before they need supporting.Though hugely fat compared to steel girders, they are relatively prone to fracture. That's why they all had so many columns.

  7. There is an article in Wikipedia about the mud flow in a gas rich area called Porong, Sidoarjo in East Java:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidoarjo_mud_flowIt's a story of corruption a double edged one worthy of an Hollywood plot with a minister of the environment also the owner of the offending company.The point is that looking for hydrocarbons seems to require drilling through a layer of limestone. Limestone is an impermeable rock and so any oils below it will be contained.But rock is not good at resisting stress. It is in fact kept stable by the weight of the stuff above it.Once the drill broke through, the only way to stop the top layer being removed was to cap the well. But it couldn't be capped as the drilling company never used safety casings.Water poured up from beneath the limestone and washed away the clay above the limestone.Once the layers had been removed or destabilised (a little technical this) wet mud no longer has a direct bearing on the column below. The mud spreads and pressure on the limestone drops.And that's not counting the millions of tons that have poured away in the last 4 years or so.Given time, limestone will heal itself. It forms patches like stalactites and stalagmites. Maybe that is what is intended with the blocks of concrete they tried to sink into the site.Anyway the disaster is a classical introduction into the behaviour of rocks. Rock is considered: Permeable, semi-permeable and impermeable.But it is all permeable in reality. The lintels on the temple at Stonehenge in Salisbury Plain, England and the tops of all the columns of all the ancient temples since, can only be so long before they need supporting.Though hugely fat compared to steel girders, they are relatively prone to fracture. That's why they all had so many columns.

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