Talk:Prediction of volcanic activity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Volcanoes

This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

You are very welcome to post comments and discuss issues related to the article. If you have questions unrelated to the improvement of this article, please instead search for answers, or post them, at Ask-A-Volcanologist. Please help to keep it organised and refrain from advertising your own niche research field or individual favourite volcano. --Carboxen 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New edits & changes

Many edits & changes: intro, +weblinks, +thermal monitoring, iceberg tremors moved to seismicity, hydrology edited (needs more help) and amended, +mass movements (incorp. existing lahar paragraph), moved case studies into their own section. The article still needs help. --Carboxen 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested page renaming

I would prefer the title of this article to be renamed "Volcanic activity prediction". After all, the text describes the monitoring and prediction of existing volcanoes. "Volcano prediction" implies the prediction of the occurrence of new volcanoes usually in terms of their plate tectonic setting i.e. intraplate volcanoes above hotspots far from plate boundaries as well as other volcanoes at constructive or destructive plate margins. When new volcanoes do form, they are not usually predicted anyway, e.g. Surtsey or Paricutin. Loihi as the next Hawaiian volcano is the only example I can think where any significant effort has been put into volcano prediction as opposed to volcanic activity prediction. So does anybody object to a renaming of this article to reflect the dominant motivation being activity not initial formation? Alternatively, the article could be expanded to cover the prediction of Loihi eventually going sub-aerial? I welcome any comments on this. GeoWriter 17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey GeoWriter, I couldn't agree more, it is a bit awkward, not being used in our profession and should be changed. I will change it in a few days if no complaints arise. The old title as it is now should still link to the new one. --Carboxen 04:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
For now, I've at least removed the incorrect capilization (per WP:MOS) and moved the article to Volcano prediction. I agree that "Volcanic activity prediction" is a more descriptive title, I'm not opposed to a further rename to that title. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a rename is a good plan, but thought I would throw a few more suggestions in. I think possibly 'Prediction of volcanic activity' sounds less clumsy, or what about 'Eruption prediction' if you want something shorter? Eve 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point Eve, thank you for your thoughts and suggestions. However, I dislike 'Eruption prediction' for two reasons:
  • Eruptions are not the only activity monitored and predicted. It depends on the hazards. There is for instance toxic gas monitoring at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory and at LVO, there is landslide and ground stability monitoring and prediction on many volcanoes, as well as crater lake natural dam break monitoring (e.g., on the Philippines and in Costa Rica), and lahar monitoring and prediction. I would therefore see 'Eruption prediction' as a misleading term.
  • Dental eruptions are predicted as well and would thus be 'Eruption predictions' too.
Maybe "Volcanic activity prediction" is better, or any other suggestion?
--Carboxen 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, fair point. (Incidentally I have no idea what a dental eruption is, and from the sound of it I'm quite glad I've never had cause to find out!). Eve 11:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not as bad as it sounds... just when a growing tooth emerges through the gum that covered it before, that would be a dental or tooth eruption. --Carboxen 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Eve, I considered 'Prediction of volcanic activity' when I first raised the subject but then thought 'Volcanic activity prediction' was more concise. Now I agree that 'Prediction of volcanic activity' would be less clumsy and so it gets my vote. GeoWriter 15:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page re-organization, references

Hi Eve, Your initiative to improve this article is more than welcome (as posted on your userpage) and I couldn't agree more - it needs references and is still in some parts a compilation of disconnected concepts. I tried reorganizing it a few months ago but usually don't have much time and no one else volunteered. Have a go at it whenever you can! --Carboxen 15:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I don't have a huge amount of time myself at the moment, but I'll see what I can do. If anyone else feels like helping then please do. Eve 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, having a quick look over it, I'm thinking of some fairly large structural changes. I thought I'd flag up my suggestions beforehand so if people disagree then I haven't wasted hours doing it! Eve 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Remove iceberg tremors
  • Remove the seismic case study
  • Merge most of remote sensing in with what it senses (eg thermal RS in with thermal monitoring)
  • Lose the three dubious case studies, and replace them with a couple of others demonstrating applications of the range of techniques discussed above.
  • Find lots of references!


Incidentally Carboxen, I think you added the 'five principles' in the first section, can you remember where you got them from so I can add a citation? If anyone else has ideas for good references to put in the article please shout. Either refs to back up the existing content, or ideas for other topics to cover. Eve 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Eve, these five principles come from many years of work with volcanic hazards, in many countries and on an international level. I can try to find references that cover these, but it might take a while and it won't be one single reference. I will try to back-match the principles to what myself and others have published. --Carboxen 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As an additional note regarding your suggestions above: I agree with your bullets # 1, 2, 3, and 5 (references - doesn't have to be lots for an encyclopedia, but sufficient - it's not an academic paper). Bullet 3 might be good but the first type (cloud sensing) doesn't really fit in anywhere. UNLESS we open a new header for eruption monitoring/observation - since most other methods/cases described apply to pre-event monitoring. Bullet 4 is also OK I think, but I would do the following: move the Sakurajima, Japan section to the article Sakurajima, move or delete the Etna one, but leave Nyiragongo - it is a widely discussed example of difficult logistics with few available instruments. If we only include well monitored examples like Hawaii, Vesuvius, St. Helens, then the reality is not represented well. --Carboxen 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll have a look for general references too. I just thought since the five principles were put down so specifically that they might have come from one place. I was planning to put cloud sensing in the gasses section, and broaden it a bit to touch on eruption plume detection perhaps. Thanks for the help, Eve 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)