Talk:List of volcanic eruptions in the 21st century

Untitled

Why are there no dates in the dates?

What use is a list that just gives a year and a VEI number?

Weatherlawyer (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why the Holuhraun eruption is not listed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.96.57 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

VEI for Puyehue-Cordón Caulle

Moved to Talk:List of large volcanic eruptions § VEI for Puyehue-Cordón Caulle

 – 00:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Where's the content gone!

Someone has removed all the content. 2A00:23C6:9205:A201:90E9:7194:BF68:A490 (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hunga Tonga Size

Ok we are gonna stop this at once. The size is not confirmed but it is likely VEI 4-5 and hence its best we either put that in the chart or a question mark until Tongas agency says something which will be in awhile given communication issues in the country. I also think we should had protection to the page for time being HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement to even include the Tongan eruption in this list at all, at this time. This list does not need to contain any particular eruption within hours of its occurrence. Having said that, the current Tongan eruption is in the list, so "VEI 4-5?" seems a realistic estimate at this stage and would indicate a possible range rather than prematurely settling on "VEI 5" (which is the value in list article currently, sourced from a popular science magazine). Most people incorrectly assume that VEI can be assigned within hours of an eruption blast (similar to how the public has come to expect earthquake magnitudes on the long-obsolete "Richter scale" to be reported within minutes) but VEI isn't assigned like that. Experts need time to e.g. assess amount of erupted material, not just measure eruption plume height. GeoWriter (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

plume height of VEI3 stops at 15 km , this went at least above 15.2 km , since VEI4-VEI8 are open ended for plume height we should at least put it as VEI4+ , also a geologist stated a high end VEI4 for the minimum https://www.youtube.com/c/GeologyHub/about Joshoctober16 (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

We can't really use Geologyhub as a source as much i want to since hes not considered a fully realible source but yes this was a VEI4+ thats for sure HavocPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have found proof of it being VEI6 + a couple other papers have done so. So maybe change the VEI to 5-6 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL098123 GlendermanGamingYT (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

yall are getting kind petty with the VEI here are some sources for a VEI. Study harder also if it is largest eruption for 30 years, that means it is around same size and Pinotubo, a VEI 6, now here are links, read them please ffs https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2022GL098123 https://www.essoar.org/doi/10.1002/essoar.10510358.1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360342403_Using_Infrasound_and_Umbrella_Cloud_Radius_to_Estimate_the_Size_of_the_Hunga_Tonga_Eruption GlendermanGamingYT (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

2008 Chaitén Volcano eruption

Some estimates of the eruption have it as much as 4 km³ in erupted tephra, which is why I put it as a VEI-5. Two VEI-5 level tephra values are on the VOGRIPA website. Faren29 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of large volcanic eruptions in the 21st century

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of large volcanic eruptions in the 21st century's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GVP":

• From 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption and tsunami. "Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai: Eruptive History". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Archived from the original on 10 June 2022. Retrieved 2 February 2022.
• From Chaitén (volcano): "Chaitén". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved May 2, 2018.
• From 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull: "Eyjafjallajökull". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2021-05-14.
• From List of large historical volcanic eruptions: "Global Volcanism Program". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution.
• From 2020–2022 Taal Volcano eruptions: "Taal: Eruptive History". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved May 15, 2021.
• From 2021 eruption of La Soufrière: "Soufrière St. Vincent". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2021-04-16.
• From Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai: "Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai: Eruptive History". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Archived from the original on 2 February 2022. Retrieved 2 February 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Smaller eruptions

This list, as stated in the introduction, includes also "smaller eruptions that resulted in fatalities, significant damage or disruptions". Moreover, an eruption can be still large (not regarding damage on humans) with a low VEI, since VEI is a measure only of the explosivity, not considering effusive activity (see for example 1669 eruption of Mount Etna). --Floydpig (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias towards GVP (again)

This was an issue initially raised in 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption and tsunami but appears in nearly every volcano article. There is an obvious bias towards the GVP's VEI estimate that some editors are clutching to dear life. The recent removal of Maple Doctor's edit by Edgar because "it's not official" is an example of the peremptory decision and policy that needs to be discussed. The GVP does not officially decide what VEI is assigned to an eruption. It does not comply with the neutral policy Wikipedia intends. Surely the editors can discuss this instead of arbitrarily deciding to follow the GVP. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I would generally agree that the GVP should be the default source, although they are not perfect and some data might be outdated, and other sources should be considered in some situations. For example, GVP has the Fuego 2018 eruption as VEI-2 and the Raikoke 2019 eruption as VEI-3, though these should clearly be VEI-3 and VEI-4 respectively. As another example, the Taupo Hatepe eruption in 180-230 CE is assigned a VEI-6 by the GVP when it should be a 7. Perhaps Maple Doctor could contact GVP about these? Mrmp2402 (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I contacted the GVP about Havre on Twitter some time ago and they said that the reason it is listed as VEI 1 on their website is simply because they haven't gotten around to looking at the literature yet. Maple Doctor (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"though these should clearly be VEI-3 and VEI-4 respectively"... What's the source for that claim? --Thogo 18:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Many people are destroying this page, might recommend semi-protecting the page to block this? TheEasternEditer (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

21st century

If this is a list of eruptions in the 21st century, why are three from 2000 included in the list? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)