Talk:La Garita Caldera

message: TOPO! GPS Data Format Deg NAD27 ElevFeet
BENTSFORT ,38.09444,-102.75972,3789,BENTS NEW FORT MARKER :: ELEV 3789 FT
LAGARITAR,37.81250,-106.18750,7673,LA GARITA REGION :: ELEV 7673 FT
LAGARITAW ,37.95417,-106.85056,12748,LA GARITA WILDERNESS :: ELEV 12748 FT
LAGARITAC ,37.83778,-106.37278,9211,LITTLE LA GARITA CREEK :: ELEV 9211 FT
*List of Colorado rivers
RJBurkhart 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO: La Garita Mountains 

message: Someone has stated that the Fish Canyon Tuff from La Garita Caldera was a VEI-9 eruption and that the volume was 18,000 cubic km. Both are inaccurate. Nowhere in the article  does it state that the FC Tuff had a high volume as this. In fact, it's still stated as 5,000 cubic km in that article. Because the erupted volume is under 10,000 cubic km, it is still a VEI-8 eruption . If you read the article carefully (see first link in this paragraph), "Magnitude" is really a separate scale, and it is important to note that VEI and magnitude measure eruption sizes differently. VEI measures eruption sizes based on volume of magma erupted in cubic km and eruption column height. Magnitude, as used in the article by Mason et al, measures eruption size based on mass of magma erupted in kilograms. NorthernFire 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me. Sorry, I misread the Mason et al article. Thanks for picking this up. I see most of related edits  I made (to supervolcano, Volcanic Explosivity Index, and this article) have already been fixed, and I'm about to fix the few minor issues remaining. -- Avenue 08:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Siberian Traps is the largest known eruption on Earth.Lavalover 00:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Fish Canyon Tuff was not a VEI-9 eruption

message: Surely there is a simple map or diagram of the caldera that could be included in the article? 128.165.87.144 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a location map and photo have been hiding over at Wheeler Geologic Area.  I have added those to the article.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Regarding the phrase "It is possibly only the second most energetic event to have ocurred on Earth besides the Chicxulub impact", what about the impact that formed the moon?  Or the Sudbury Basin impact.  Or the Vredefort crater impact?  The phrase should be modified to read "It is probably the most energetic event to have ocurred on Earth since the Chicxulub impact."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgy7ujm (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this comment; there have been impacts larger than the Chicxulub.  The Vredefort and Sudbury impacts may be the only ones with known craters, but there must have been many more during the Late Heavy Bombardment. Cephal-odd (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It should be noted that this is a short term release of energy. Keep in mind that basalt flood eruptions could release more energy as well. My take is that the Deccan traps and the Columbia River flood basalt eruptions would have released much more energy, perhaps even more than the Chicxulub impact, but that energy would have been released over a longer time. And I imagine that there's eveb more energy involved in the acceleration of a major continental plate. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second most energetic event?

message: The article makes a comparison between the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated, and this eruption, but uses completely incompatible units for comparison.  This should either be removed, or the units converted to something that makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.7.183 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm inclined to agree with you. It might be better to compare with other volcanic events. One possibility is Savino & Jones ("Supervolcano: The Catastrophic Event That Changed the Course of Human History" ), who include a table in their page 104. I'm not sure if the following link to Google Books will work . Jakew (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  megatons to Zettajoules 

message: Someone may want to apply crater template

--YakbutterT (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crater Template 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on La Garita Caldera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080528060013/http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/petroj/online/Volume_38/Issue_08/pdf/ega047_gml.pdf to http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/petroj/online/Volume_38/Issue_08/pdf/ega047_gml.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on La Garita Caldera. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519165154/http://staff.aist.go.jp/s-takarada/CEV/newsletter/lagarita.html to http://staff.aist.go.jp/s-takarada/CEV/newsletter/lagarita.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HwrcnGTI?url=http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol43/issue8/images/large/egf062.f2.jpeg to http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol43/issue8/images/large/egf062.f2.jpeg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The entire discussion about the size of the eruption vs the Tsar Bomba is un-cited, and probably incorrect given the whole claim. This needs to be fixed with proper citations or deleted. Bgovern (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to Tsar Bomba needs citations