mnottertail
Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesertRat quote:
ORIGINAL: Muttling Why is Mt. Saint Helens different from Kilauea? I'm not a geologist, but I do play one at archaeological sites sometimes. I guess the main difference that comes to mind is that St. Helens (and the other volcanoes in the Cascade Range) sits over a subduction zone where basaltic oceanic crust from the Juan de Fuca plate is diving under granitic North American plate crust while Kilauea and the rest of the Hawaiian volcanoes/islands result from basaltic oceanic crust of the Pacific plate passing over an upper mantle "hot spot". So the Mt. St. Helens continental type volcanoes produce lavas that are predominantly rhyolitic (rhyolite is the extrusive, surficial form of granite) emitted from cinder cones and other pointy types of central vent cones (I don't remember what they're called), and the Hawaii type oceanic eruptions produce more viscous basaltic lava that is extruded at a more consistent rate, resulting in shield volcanoes (cuz they look like shields). That's all I got. Bob ps...(not aimed at you, Muttling) geologists, volcanologists, and climatologists all say "I don't know" about the same amount of times. Climatologists just draw more heat because their observations stand to affect the profits of people and corporations who don't give a fuck about you, me, your mom, or your kids. (edited because I forgot to mention that basaltic lava is thicker than granitic.) What happens here then when you are drenched in rhyolitic vs. basaltic lava? Which one is gonna fry you faster? And does a license avert this frying? See my point you all? How you doing Bob, ain't seen you much but I ain't been much meself. Ron
_____________________________
Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30
|