Jump to content

Talk:2011–2012 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle eruption

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2011 Puyehue eruption)

Very minor word change

[edit]

The current page says, quoting a BBC story, that locals have been "ordered" to stay indoors. I don't know if in english the word has a softer meaning, but we have been "suggested", literally, to do so, not ordered. I think the verb "to order" would imply, to outside readers, a much harder situation than the one we're actually living. I'm changing it, with a link to a local digital newspaper to back it up. Also, i've added a "citation needed" to the reports of power outages, since i've seen none. Where i live, we only had a few power fluctuations; and the local newspapers report nothing about shortages. I might be wrong, of course. Gorsh (it might be time for me to sign up to WP, by the way) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.134.163 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. "Fixed" the wrong link. There we go again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.134.163 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... And now i refute myself: There were indeed localized power outages. I'm adding the citations now.

There was a La Nación (Argentina) cite referencing the power outages, I wonder where did it go... Diego Grez (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triggered by earthquake?

[edit]

New scientist suggests [1] that the eruption may have been triggered by the 8.8 magnitude quake (from feb 27th 2011 [2])

So presume there should be a link to 2010_Chile_earthquake somewhere in this article - and possibly a link the other way too ? EdwardLane (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more useful reference material here [3] and here [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLane (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airtravel disruption

[edit]

Bueneos aires airport closed ash currently on Brazil/Uruguay border Bueneos aires airport reopened. and various other bits that could probably make a section on Airtravle disruption - fair bit of info here [5] EdwardLane (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forecast behaviour for this eruption

[edit]

The eruption could continue for several weeks and Jorge Munoz of Chile's National Geology and Mines Service apparently expects lava flows and possibly even lahars - as reported here [6] is that reasonable to assume? And should it be in the article? EdwardLane (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Risk of lahar is presumably possible there is apparently a category 3 hurricane 160 km north of the volcano - so presumably a fair amount of rainfall in the associated low pressure area.[7] EdwardLane (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The area around the Nilahue River has been evacuated - it overflowed its banks after it was blocked by volcanic ash and mounting debris. Reported here [8] EdwardLane (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No new information. It is not clear in the article that the erruption ceased around the 15th and no new ash has been added to the circumnavigating cloud. No new seismic updates in the last week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wrong article name ?

[edit]

Volcanologist Gustavo Villarrosa is reported here [9] (in spanish) as saying that the puyehue volcano itself is not emitting material. So perhaps the article needs to be renamed EdwardLane (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Villarrosa is right but the media and polar usage prefer Puyehue since cordón caulle is little known. Dentren | Talk 11:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which way is the ash blowing ?

[edit]

There is a nice nasa animation of the ash shown on the spanish article - here's the link to that file - which has the link to the original source - I've not tried doing anything exciting with images on wikipedia so it's out of my league - please make a copy we can use in this article - or interwiki link to it somehow :)

Having looked briefly at the pictures on the news the prevailing winds seem to be from west to east? But the airtraffic disruption is now in newzealand region - which is roughly 10000km in the other direction (based on this image anyway - so has the ash swirled back to the west? or did the ash go all the way around to the east 18000km (and somehow pass australia but hit newzealand and then start drifting over australia)?

Can someone clarify that in the article if they can find a source that explains it Cheers EdwardLane (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ash cloud is travelling west to east on the polar jet stream (this image shows it well, with the ash moving north-east then south-east), had it been summer it wouldn't have any affect on Australia and possibly New Zealand since the polar jet stream is well south but being winter the polar jet stream is closer to both countries. MODIS images taken over Tasmania and New Zealand show the ash far better then weather satellites can. Bureau of Meteorology'sVolcanic Ash Advisory shows the airspace affected by the ash and a little bit of information on its Cordón Caulle, Chile, June 2011 page. Bidgee (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirects

[edit]

2011 Chilean eruption , 2011 volcanic air travel disruption , 2011 Oceania volcanic ash emergency should probably redirect here, along with some others. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the second one could go to Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre
EdwardLane (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Puyehue eruption flight disruptions

[edit]

I was wondering whether a Air travel disruption after the 2011 Puyehue eruption article for the 2011 Puyehue eruption should be created? This would be analogous to the Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption article. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly getting enough press coverage here in New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this is necessary yet. The disruptions are not on such a large large scale as the Eyjafjallajökull-caused ones. If you have any new relevant info about the disruptions add it to this article for now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to follow the standard system: add the info here first, at the main article, and we may create forks like this if it becomes clear that the section grows too much. It's better than creating forks in advance. Cambalachero (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cambalachero; add the info here first and if that section becomes too large and unwieldy for this article, then split it off into a daughter article. Jenks24 (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ash deposition

[edit]

Image showing a large plume of volcanic ash blowing about 800 kilometers east and then northeast over Argentina.

This image has a scale showing how big that plume is here. Which suggests that the ash from this volcano has been deposited up to approximately 300km from the volcano, looking at the 'obvious ash' on the image above, that would mean the area covered would be approximately 75000km2 based on my thumbnail maths. Anyone seen reports giving area of ash type figures? If that's right this suggest that's an area about the same size as Lake Victoria or Austria has been covered in ash.

Maths behind the thumbnail figures I gave (if anyone is interested) the ash looks to have fallen in roughly and section of a circle 300km radius, 500km around the circumference.

  • area of a circle 300km radius = pi x 300 x 300
  • proportion of the area of circle covered by ash = proportion of the circumference covered by ash
= 500/(2 x pi x 300)
  • area covered by ash = area of circle x proportion of the circumference
= (pi x 300 x 300 x 500) / (2 x pi x 300)
= 300 x 500 / 2 = 75000

EdwardLane (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some change of a couple of toponimics

[edit]

There is NO Falkland Islands but Malvinas Islands. The same applies to a missnamed Stanley (or Port Stanley) Talk in spite of outdated Colonialist Jim Cameron , including bad diplomatic manners and explicit disrespect for International Law and Agreements (such as UNOs)190.19.196.40 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Malvinas re-directs to Falkand Islands. Please see wp:Neutral point of view. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 04:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

webcams

[edit]

this page has various webcams for volcanoes in chile including 3 for Cordon Caulle - but don't forget the timezone may mean you can't see anything. EdwardLane (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

This section got snipped out

  • Although the eruption is referred to as coming from Puyehue volcano, it actually came from a vent in the adjacent Cordón Caulle[1] volcano located some few km northwest of the Puyehue stratocone.

and this section got added to the lead

  • According to Argentine physicists, the eruption sent one hundred million tons of ash, sand and pumice stone, so much as a load of 24 million trucks of sand and released a power of 70 atomic bombs.[2]

I think both sections have some value: I think the second section should probably be trimmed in the lead and be somewhere in the main article (slightly reworded). And the clarification from the first section that the eruption was cordon caulle not puyehue remaining in the lead is important. If I get a chance I'll get round to it soon EdwardLane (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -Dentren | Talk 10:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
against. I deleted it because the fact is now in the title of the article: "2011_Puyehue-Cordón_Caulle_eruption". As we remember the old title was "2011_Puyehue_eruption". Forget the old name. --Keysanger (what?) 10:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it's still what the media are calling the eruption - so the clarification is important something along the lines of 'misleadingly called by media the puyehue eruption - the eruption is actually from the Cordon Caulle fissure' EdwardLane (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Convinced. --Keysanger (what?) 15:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Erupción del Cordón Caulle es similar a la de mayo de 1960
  2. ^ Article Chile´s Puyehue Volcano eruption equals 70 atomic bombs? in Buenos Aires Herald on July 14, 2011, retrieved on July 14, 2011

70 Atomic Bombs

[edit]

This definitely needs clarification as an atomic bomb can be any size from under 1 kT to 50 MT, a VERY wide size range.Petebutt (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 2011 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle eruption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle eruption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

It seems to me that the title should be 2011–2012 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle eruption given the fact that the eruption continued until April 2012. Volcanoguy 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of ash

[edit]

The specified amount of "one hundred million tons of ash" is not compatible with a VEI = 5. The VOGRIPA database gives 390 million m³ of magma (DRE). Multiplied by the density of approx. 2.6 t/m³ results in a weight of 10^9 tons. Ten times more than the mentioned 100 million tons. Remember, the mentioned value was published very early, in July 2011, and only the press report was quoted. Sextant (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011–2012_Puyehue-Cordón_Caulle_eruption&oldid=1196608500"