Talk:Volcanology

message: Disagree that volcanic eruptions are unpredictable. There are too many instances of accurate predictions for this old saw to keep popping up. 
Agree that many eruptions have not been predicted - but that was always a lack of monitoring and/or understanding of the plumbing. 
For documentation of accurate predictions see publications for eruptions at St. Helens, St. Augustine, Pinataubo, Mayon, Spur, Vesuvius, etc. 
Next, volcanology is not particularly dangerous for those who pay attention to the available monitoring data. Agree that there have been some spectacular losses, but many fewer than amongst those looking for oil and gold.
Regards
ngs@teleport.com
:I disagree strongly with your assertion that there are accurate predictions of volcanic eruptions. Volcanologists are actually very careful to specify that they are forecasting, not predicting, eruptions. No volcanologist would say, "This volcano will erupt next Tuesday at 4", which would be a prediction. They would say, "This volcano has a high probability of erupting in the next week", which would be a forecast. 
:In that, volcanology is a lot like meteorology - it deals in forecasts and probabilities, not absolutes. This issue is an "old saw" only because people seem to think that volcanologists are capable of predicting an eruption. They're not; they can only make very good guesses based on the best data available from their instrumentation. Those guesses improve as the technology and monitoring methods do, but they aren't absolutes, which is what a prediction entails.
:I'm curious, as a geologist and a volcanologist, to know what publications you're talking about. St. Helens, for example, was obviously going to erupt soon, but had the scientists there been able to "accurately predict" the eruption, David Johnston would not have been killed. Vesuvius last erupted in 1944, when volcanology was in its infancy and scientists didn't have half the techniques they do now - and certainly no one "predicted" the 79 AD eruption, when thousands of people died in Pompeii and Herculaneum. 
:Volcanology can also be very dangerous even if you pay attention to the monitoring data. Just because a volcano is quiet one day doesn't mean it won't erupt the next, with or without warning. We don't know a lot about the plumbing of most volcanoes, and even if we do that doesn't mean we understand how they produce eruptions. Volcanologists also face danger from hazardous gases, earthquakes, mudflows, landslides, silicosis from ash, burns from hot material, broken bones and dehydration and sunburn from fieldwork... Lots of volcanologists suffer injuries in their line of work, but only the most grievous losses are publicized enough for non-geologists to hear about them. 
:Farristry (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicting Eruptions 

message: I have made this a Geology stub. This raises the question as to whether Volcanology should be a catagory or just a subcatagory of geology. Commnets anyone?
--NHSavage 15:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub and catagory 

message: I know next to nothing about geology, but this part of the edge of the crater of Volcán Irazú, Costa Rica looks like a fault to me, something that is caused by the distortion of old rocks. But shouldn't a volcanic crater have all 'fresh', 'unfolded' rock? I don't know where to put this image, so I'll leave that to the experts. (Let's see where flattery gets me:) ). DirkvdM 12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an unconformity, a more recent lava flow on top of older material. The tilting - craters result from the collapse of a volcanic core which creates considerable local faulting and distortion, so folded or tilted and distorted lava layers are to be expected around a caldera collapse. Vsmith 13:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock 

message: The entire content of History of Volcanology has been merged into Volcanology, and that page is now a redirect.  There is no need for a separate article yet, and this article is vastly improved by including that content directly within it.  This article was just a stub otherwise.  --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[History of Volcanology]] 

message: That section reads like it was written by a four year old. I have no idea what it's talking about. Valcanoes I guess..
--unsigned
The christian section is not that neutral "miraculously" and "clove" sounds like it's taken from an f'in sermon.
M4bwav 19:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythical History of Volcanology 

message: An anon editor using an Indiana University IP recently added content to this section. The user gave Harvard style references (name and date), but did not finish with full references in a reference section. I have made an attempt to fill out the missing refs with a bit of googling and searching on Amazon. Hopefully I haven't messed 'em up too badly :-) and perhaps the anon will return and correct any errors I have made. Vsmith 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tools and techniques of volcanology 

message: (is a person who studies volcanic activity)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.80.134 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  volcanologist 

message: === Discussion ===
Remark: Try suggestions for a different wording direct in the text above and provide notes in this section
:I would suggest that this would sit a lot better as a section in the volcanic hazards article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, will do so. Serten II (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting on reading this 7 year old post, and the 2008 post above. I very recently found,  and corrected volcano article which had become over simplified optimistic in relevant section, despite recognising that main reference article was volcanic hazards that explains matters fairly well after the input above.ChaseKiwi (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Made a start to improve quality but could do with help of others.ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Remark: Try suggestions for a different wording direct in the text above and provide notes in this section
:I would suggest that this would sit a lot better as a section in the volcanic hazards article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, will do so. Serten II (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting on reading this 7 year old post, and the 2008 post above. I very recently found,  and corrected volcano article which had become over simplified optimistic in relevant section, despite recognising that main reference article was volcanic hazards that explains matters fairly well after the input above.ChaseKiwi (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Tend to agree with the crewbot today - multiple poorly sourced statements suggesting article has been left to drift. Needs a manual go over to bring back up in quality. Should be possible as fair number open source reviews in academic literature to use as secondary sources ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a start to improve quality but could do with help of others.ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of article