Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Mount St. Helens Eruption Baffles Scientists 381

jurt1235 writes "Mount St. Helens, which started erupting 15 months ago, is still erupting. The weird part is, by now every 3 seconds 10 cubic yards of lava is coming out of the volcano but scientists cannot determine from where it is coming anymore. From the article: 'The volume is greater than anything that could be standing in a narrow 3-mile pipe. That suggests resupply from greater depths, which normally would generate certain gases and deep earthquakes. Neither is being detected.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mount St. Helens Eruption Baffles Scientists

Comments Filter:
  • by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday December 31, 2005 @04:47PM (#14371663) Homepage Journal
    One of my oldest friends is a professor of geology and geophysics at a University. Because most of what he has told me is off the record and unquotable, I can't give his name (I wish I could). He admits to me that geophysicists have no idea what is happening beneath the thinnest part of the earth's crust that we live on -- and that almost every theory they've created has been shut down by actual accounts of natural phenomena. I wish he'd go public with these thoughts, but I guess it would kill off his funding.

    It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters. I know I always look for the best income for the least amount of work.

    I study oil and gold extraction (I blog about gold mines, too) and I am amazed at how often scientists are proven wrong. I know that it is heretical to say that on slashdot (I was blasted about it earlier this morning on this very forum), but we as a society seem to have too much faith in scientific research finding facts that turn out to be just plain wrong.

    What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true? Is oil possibly a renewable resource (meaning there is near unlimited amounts deeper within the earth waiting to bubble up)? Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade? How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?

    I rarely thank AP writers for their research, but in this case I have to. I'm glad the spotlight is being shined on the fallacies that come out of the mouths of scientists looking for more research dollars (on the backs of the taxpayers). I believe we DO need to carry out research -- not publicly funded -- but I also think we need to evaluate how much of what they discover is really factual enough to base wars, regulations and restrictions on. I understand that science is constantly finding new theories to fix their old ones, and I have no problem with continued research -- just as long as I don't pay for it involuntarily and as long as no one makes laws and restrictions based on non-facts. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.
  • Volcano Cam (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @04:50PM (#14371676)
    http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/ [fs.fed.us]

    if they get the camera up again you can watch it...
  • Or ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by temojen ( 678985 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @05:50PM (#14371925) Journal
    Possibly slow resupply of (in geologic terms) small amounts of lava does not nescesarily cause detectable earthquakes and gas release.
  • Re:Available volume? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31, 2005 @06:13PM (#14372025)
    Well, I think it's mostly a matter of pressure, instead of raw volume. Even if there -were- 5.whatever billion cubic yards of magma down there, if there's nothing pressing it upwards it's going to stay down there. That's likely why they're talking about resupply; certainly there's enough pressure in the tube to make a -certain- amount of lava come out, but they don't think it's enough pressure to make the magnitude of lava they're seeing come out.

    -Jeffrey
  • by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @07:35PM (#14372311) Homepage Journal
    It went a little something like this:

    Once there was a village in the country. The people were happy. The village was nice. In general things were pretty good. Then one day a man in the village discovered a deep dark hole just outside of the village. He yelled into it and was surprised that his voice did not echo back. He called a few others who also wondered at the discovery. Soon it was decided that the hole should be inspected further and people gathered the tools to do so. The first test was to yell "hello" as lous as possible and listen for an echo carefully. This failed. The next test was to throw a stone into the hole and listen for it to hit the bottom. This was done, but no sound was ever heard. The next test was to drop something more substantial into the hole and listen for it to hit bottom. Again, nothing was heard. More tests followed until...

    It was decided that the hole was the perfect place for the village's rubbish to be disposed of. Day after day, week after week and year after year, they continued to throw their litter into the hole. Until one day many many years later, the man who discovered the hole heard a voice call from above just outside his home, "Hellllo". He was startled but ignored it. The next day he heard another voice calling followed by a small stone hitting the ground near him. It was then that he realized what had happened and wished he'd never found the hole outside of the village.

    ---

    Now, I could simply make some flip statement about him having found Bob Goatse... but instead I'll make the point that perhaps the endless flow of lava is coming from the Earth's future where all of our waste is miraculously disposed of through some kind of wormhole... ;P Happy New Year you sods!
  • by TyrelHaveman ( 159881 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @07:36PM (#14372315) Homepage
    10 cubic yards every 3 seconds, I believe that comes out to 288000 cubic yards per day.

    The article indicates that this has been happening at this pace for 15 months... so roughly 635 days. That makes 182,880,000 total cubic yards of lava.

    With that much lava, you could cover a typical city block (1/4 mile by 1/4 mile according to my estimates?) 1417 feet (432 meters) deep. That's almost as tall as the Sears Tower (including the antennas), and taller than the Empire State Building. So fill one of them up with lava. That's enough lava for me :-)

    For this amount of lava to have come out of the "narrow 3 mile pipe" they mention in the article (assuming it doesn't get refilled and it's perfectly cylindrical), the pipe would need to be 178 feet in diameter... is that "narrow"? Dunno... I'm not a geologist :-P
  • Re:See folks... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @07:59PM (#14372390) Homepage Journal
    Religion, Science, Philosophy, whatever: question it all and keep an open mind to differing viewpoints. - while science, philosophy can be reworked if facts contradict theories, religion cannot, so I don't understand why you are putting them into the same category.
  • Re:See folks... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@@@sbcglobal...net> on Saturday December 31, 2005 @08:38PM (#14372539) Homepage Journal
    "While science, philosophy can be reworked if facts contradict theories, religion cannot, so I don't understand why you are putting them into the same category."

    Why not?

    It's a legitimate question. And really think about it, instead of just posting the first answer that comes to mind. For example, you might want to take a look at the Reformation and what that was all about.
  • by Latent Heat ( 558884 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @10:33PM (#14372877)
    My understanding is that Thomas Gold was arguing that the source of oil, gas, and possibly even coal (yeah, yeah, I know about how coal is dense with fossil imprints) is in the upper mantle, and the carbon got there by the cold accretion of carbonaceous meteorites during the formation of the Earth, the same way methane and other hydrocarbons to to Titan.

    Two difficulties with that. One is that the Moon is supposed to have formed from a collision with a Mars-sized body over 4 billion years ago. That collision is believed to have melted everything down to a 1000 km. The other is that the mantle has abundant oxygen and heat, and plate tectonics says it is in convective motion mixing up the different layers (although very slowly) -- one would think all the carbon is now CO2 or CaCO3 or something by now.

    However, there is still the matter of diamonds, which are not believed to be dead dinosaurs (diamonds are aged 1 billion years or more, typically) -- they had to have originated in the upper mantle (about 100 km down) and had to have been brought to the surface rapidly (to avoid reversion to graphite, although you get graphite pseudomorphs of diamond -- clumps of graphite shaped like diamond crystals which were probably diamonds brought up too slowly so they reverted to the stable graphite form). While diamonds are rare, and the Kiberlite pipe eruptions that brought them up are rare and maybe date only to an earier geologic epoch, there has to be something to produce reduced carbon down below.

    J F Kenney and his Russian associates believe that starting with FeO, CaCO3 and H2O (stuff not hard to find in the mantle owing to limestone and water being subducted down and Fe being brought up by mantle convection) you can end up with CH4 plus higher chain hydrocarbons. The argument is that about 100 km down is the only place methane, octane, and above can form is that the thermodynamics works at those temps and pressures and that the thermodynamics don't work for turning plant/algae material into oil in the traditional "oil window" of about 1-2 miles down.

    So, there you have it -- oil is created from the same place an process as engagement ring stones, not only does oil not come from dead dinosaurs but from rocks instead (although the subducted CaCO3 could have its origins in biology of reef building), but that oil is not latent solar energy (in the form of sequestered biomass) but that oil is in reality geothermal energy (geologic raw materials brought together by heat-driven mantle convection and endothermic reactions driven by mantle heat).

    If oil is really geothermal instead of solar in origin, one could consider and advanced technological culture with the capability of somehow using the environment of 100 km down as a natural resource, and of establishing a closed-cycle renewable geothermal based energy economy based on -- oil! One could sequester CO2 deep below and get back reduced carbon, all driven by geothermal power, which has its origins in natural radioactive decay along with the latent heat of fusion of iron in the core.

    I mean think about it. A lot of the speculation about advanced energy cultures for the far future look outward into space and of tapping the vast resource of solar energy on the Earth surface, in Earth orbit, and beyond -- think Dyson sphere. Has anyone speculated, either in popular science writing or science fiction, about an advanced energy culture fully utilizing the energy resource within a planet?

    You may say drilling or tunneling 10 km is stretching it not to imagine 100 km? But who is to say drill. Some MIT dude suggested using a million tons of molton iron (some grant proposal) to melt and sink its way all the way to the core to carry some kind of probe to find out "what is down there." Who is to say that some related scheme may be able to both bring materials down to the mantle (say CO2) and bring back materials (oil and gas) in a closed loop? I am not saying it is practical with today's technology, but it is not anything violating

  • by tmortn ( 630092 ) on Sunday January 01, 2006 @12:47AM (#14373132) Homepage
    ONe nit.. at temps and pressures found deep in the earth oil can't exist. Well acording to conventional knowledge niether can water and yet it was found by the Russians in their Kola hole at unthinkable depths, temps and pressures. That hole is some 40,000 feet deep and is the deepest hole yet dug by man. The Kola dig is a fascinating venture. It has found contradictions with standing theory at almost every point along the way and yet there has been no real move by science to update those theories to match with what has been found from an actual hole dug in the ground.

    I think that is what the parent poster was really getting at. Some of these theories get to be dogmatic and the adherents to them are no more responsive to corrections in their thinking than Religious Fanatics clinging to their bibles.

  • by Reverse Gear ( 891207 ) on Sunday January 01, 2006 @02:52AM (#14373348) Homepage
    Studying geophysics I guess I should be able to answer questions like this one myself, but I am not able to do that right now as I have not had all that many lectures on the nature and forces of vulcanoes (I am mostly studying groundwater and technologies associated with this).

    I wonder if this "too large" amount of lava could have anything to do with the blast in 1980? The blast must have caused some change in the way this vulcanoe works.
    I guess the lack of earthquakes does disprove this idea if the rigedity below St. Helens is correctly estimated.

    Anyhow I think this is very interesting, this is something I will try to keep myself updated on by studying articles in the geophysics library (I haven't found the articles of the magazines found there "online for free" so far).
    As also mentioned in other comments geophysics do know astonishingly little about what is actually going on beneath the crust. Geophysics is a "young science" and there is a lot of new interesting studies and theories coming out all the time, but still none of them doesn't give a decent explanation of everything that is going on that we can detect.
  • by Ashtead ( 654610 ) on Sunday January 01, 2006 @04:54AM (#14373512) Journal
    Please give an example of just one permanent law created due to what scientists have claimed.

    How about Hooke's law on deformation of structural elements when external forces are applied to them, leading to legal requirements for civil engineers? Or the statistic observation on heating of electrical conductors from electrical currents, and on physiological effects of electricity on the human heart leading to the National Electrical Code?

    Both physical laws are empirical and claimed as observations, and have limited applicability: Hookes Law about proportional deformation under load is only good until the loaded structure breaks down; likewise, the expectation of constant resistance or current-carrying capability breaks once the cable or connector has heated up enough to cause metallurgical changes in the material. Yet both are fundaments for important and long-lasting regulations.

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...