Kilauea Eruption 12/23/24

[TomK]

TomK - Sigh...
Sigh indeed - if you read the USGS link provided (or this paper) you might see why given the installation conditions the instrument itself is unlikely to be heated in an uneven way and therefore the cause of the diurnal pattern.

I didn't mention uneven heating. I mentioned contraction and expansion.

[TomK]

This uneven expansion partially helps answer my question as to why the daily tilt pattern happens at all, but not why it appears to always be in an inflationary direction in the data provided..

And therein lies the reason for my thoughts in the first place. Which for me is the unusualness of seeing a diurnal effect superimposed over an inflationary event. We usually see the diurnal when it is able to show up because of no other influences. When the tilt is going up or down it is usually too much to allow the diurnal to be seen at the same time.. so.. looking back, again, at what I posted to begin with.. #57 in this thread, in response to kalianna I posted..

But if atmospheric temps affected tilt..

Seasonal.. I get it but can’t imagine being able to tease it out of the record. There's so much that goes on over time to sift through.

The thing is under normal.. ie closed off from the surface.. circumstances I am not used to seeing tis type of signal when there’s inflation deflation cycles tied to episodic phases of eruptive activity. The only time I see it on a regular basis is when the inflation is flat..

For instance.. here’s the same time periods of tilt, one week and one month, of the summit of Mauna Loa..

One week..



One month..



In which the diurnal is very graphic and the end result is easy to see an average of the daily wave.. unlike Kilauea’s which is rising.

So.. with that go back to my otherwise most recent post.. #84.. where I ask is the steps in the inflation which are cause by the diurnal just noise, or does the diurnal itself add to the eruptive process?

And, to that I'll add.. simplistically..

A volcano is pretty much a giant hydraulic system.

In a closed hydraulic system, with a fluid that itself is minimally compressible, it is easy to visualize how, when a force is applied at one point of the enclosure the fluid then transfers that force through itself to all parts of the system, more or less instantly. In this way a break system on a car transfers the force of a driver’s foot on the break pedal to the breaks at all four wheels and slows the vehicle. The driver sits comfortably in the driver’s seat and applies pressure to the break pedal, and the hydraulic system efficiently transfers that energy to the wheels and what started as a few pounds of pressure moving the pedal a few inches turns into enough energy to slow/stop a moving vehicle. Simple closed system hydraulics.

If that same closed break system were to get a hole in it it would then become an open system, and all the energy applied to the pedal would push the enclosed fluids to the opening in the system without exerting pressure elsewhere. Of course there could be an opening that is, relative to the system, small enough it would allow the system to maintain some or most of its pressure and only a small amount of fluid to be leaked out over time while the bulk of the pressure applied to the pedal would still result in stopping the vehicle. In other words there’s some gray between closed and open.

Which is Kilauea, and with that in mind what is the effect of the diurnal?

And, btw, I have been reading this tilt station's data since its inception, and at one point was involved in quantifying how much magma was equal to the rate of change being recorded. Then, when we were able to compare exact amounts of lava erupted to the amount of tilt recorded, it was pretty much 1 microrad to 1 million cubic meters of lava. So, with these steps in tilt being as much as 1/2 microradian they can amount to the over all volume being recorded being a fair amount different which ever way they are interpreted.

And after all those words, there's no explanation of how the difference between night and daytime temperatures cause eruptions, and no correlation shown that would even make someone think that.  If the diurnal temperature variations are so small that you can't distinguish them from the magma pressure from below, then the data are just noise.

You say: "Which is Kilauea, and with that in mind what is the effect of the diurnal?"

I don't know what that sentence means, it's like asking what is the color blue. You've come up with an idea. I won't call it a hypothesis because it isn't, but what evidence do you have that helps you argue in support of your idea?

[MyManao]

And after all those words, there's no explanation of how the difference between night and daytime temperatures cause eruptions..

I am confused. Nobody said anything about the diurnal causing eruptions, so why would there be an explanation for it doing so?

[kalianna]

Well this is certainly something different.  Instrument malfunction or something big coming our way?

https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kilauea/s...ta-kilauea

[TomK]

From MyManao:

"I am confused. Nobody said anything about the diurnal causing eruptions, so why would there be an explanation for it doing so? "

Post #56

"I find it interesting.. and wonder.. does that change in tilt that happens because of the heating and cooling of the atmosphere actually account for more magma to flow, and if so then the total tilt over time as plotted is directly tied to magma accumulation regardless of the atmospheric contribution? Or, is that illusionary in that there is no increase in flow and as such the overall amount of magma accumulating, or more specifically ground tilting, is less than the end point of the tilt plot suggests? In other words, do we have to subtract all that atmospheric activity to get a true sense of how much magma is accumulating over time?"

Post #62

"As to whether this all could mean there's a corresponding increase in the influx of magma, verses those steps are purely atmospheric, that’s getting down in the weeds. Is the expansion of the rock asymmetrical and as such is it somehow creating a larger void space below it that is hydraulically responded to? Or, is the pressure of the rock’s expansion down as much as it is up? I lean more to the later, and as such speak in terms of chopping off the steps, subtracting them from the total, rather than taking the overall rate of change at face value."
Then there was an intermission about telescopes detecting shore break. That was just pure distraction.
I tried to start discussing this topic with you, I was interested to see if you could actually maintain a scientific discussion, but no, that ditn't happen:

Post #74

"You're asking questions that suggest you have no idea what you are talking about. My work? Dude, I asked a question. I didn't do any work, have nothing to show. Never said I did. All I am doing is playing around with an idea.. a simple one. Hydraulics, open system verses closed. Simple. But we never got that far.. because you can not comprehend the meaning of the things you read.

And to think you call yourself a scientist.. and expect others to believe you."

Then there's post #82

"I am sorry Tom, it has gotten, if not impossible, extremely hard to bat around ideas with you anymore. As if it ever was easy.. considering how one sided your approach to reality is. How everything has to be to your way of thinking otherwise it is wrong. It’s always been that way.. which is why I have, through the years, pointing out that scientists are people that view the world objectively, and to call oneself a scientist one has to demonstrate objective reasoning, and you have always struggled with that. Here, at least, you’re always, seemingly, been led around by your emotions, by your likes and dislikes. You never have demonstrated objectivity in discourse here, ever. You may have objectivity when observing a star.. but never here. With starlight, sure, with people, not so much. And you have never been able to grok simple physics as it applies to the workings of Earth's structures. I am sorry, you’ve always missed that mark.

Again, you may know the nuances of starlight, but otherwise, you have not shown an appreciation for the more mundane Earth sciences, or impartiality in general. In reality, overall, you’re just another person, a bully in fact. A person that brags about himself but otherwise is mean to anyone that threatens their sense of their own superiority.

So, please, accept my condolences.. and stop embarrassing yourself. It’s time to put it out to pasture. Tell us how your day’s going, howz the family, the pets, share a published article on some obscure star system and what the real researchers are gleaming from its light. But you gotta recognize when I say white and you insist I said black, and insist over and over again, it’s time to find another pastime.. proving your superiority to us isn’t working anymore. As if it ever did. But hey, you’ve had a good run at trying, and now it’s time to give it up. Find another hobby. Being nice, encouraging others, maybe that's the ticket. Who knows, but hey, you might as well give it a try, right?"

And finally, post #84

"I've been trying.. but god knows our wannabe 'scientist' has been giving us all a lesson in senility that has, again, overwhelmed the thread.. but hey I'll try and recap.. "

[MyManao]

insanely reposts reams of..

Someone please..  get this guy some help...

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Protest on Hwy 11 right now between Volcano Village and the park, near the park sign.  Many people waving signs of support for the rangers, and the park. Stop The Coup! etc signs as well.

[Obie]

"I am confused. Nobody said anything about the diurnal causing eruptions, so why would there be an explanation for it doing so? "

Post #56

"I find it interesting.. and wonder.. does that change in tilt that happens because of the heating and cooling of the atmosphere actually account for more magma to flow, and if so then the total tilt over time as plotted is directly tied to magma accumulation regardless of the atmospheric contribution? "

I'm confused too.
You posted that you never said anything about the diurnal causing eruptions but previously posted that it could cause more lava to flow.
What's the difference ?
You posted a bunch of charts and then get mad when someone asks you about it or is it just Tom ?

---

"Protest on Hwy 11 right now between Volcano Village and the park, near the park sign. Many people waving signs of support for the rangers, and the park. Stop The Coup! etc signs as well."

Is it erupting on the road if not this post belongs somewhere else ?

[ironyak]

Magma is not the same as lava.
Accumulation is not the same as an eruption.
Again, reading comprehension is important.

The real mystery to me is why MyManao bothers to attempt to have a discussion when the bare minimums are clearly not understood and those that keep questioning can't do the basic readings or apparently comprehend the answers repeatedly provided.

Obie - this post belongs somewhere else ?
A comment not immediately related to the thread topic? Oh lawdy, whatever has Punaweb come to? Do you need to speak to a manager?

[TomK]

Magma is not the same as lava.
Accumulation is not the same as an eruption.
Again, reading comprehension is important.

The real mystery to me is why MyManao bothers to attempt to have a discussion when the bare minimums are clearly not understood and those that keep questioning can't do the basic readings or apparently comprehend the answers repeatedly provided.

Magma that is being erupted is the same physical thing as lava. It's just a different name, depending if it's underground or on the surface. I've no idea where you are going with the accumulation thing. I agree that reading comprehension is important, so I pointed out that I did not refer to uneven heating of instruments despite your post. I don't think you got that bit right. So what's next? More ad hominem from MyManao? And still, there is no evidence to support that atmospheric temperatures near the surface affect eruptions.