Talk:Volcanic ash

message: The second paragraph of atmospheric effects is completely wrong, according to the current best scientific knowledge, and does not reflect any of the understanding of volcanic dynamics learned since the early 80's.  Volcanic ash only has a residence time in the stratosphere of a few months, and has been found not to be responsible for the long term climatic effects.  Volatiles, specifically SO2 have a much longer residence time in the stratosphere, where they form aerosols/ice particles which are the source of the long term climatic effects, not fine ash particles which are glass and crystal fragments.  Good references to use:  
Sigurdsson, H., 1982, Volcanic pollution and climate--the 1783 Laki eruption: American Geophysical Union, EOS Transactions, v. 10 August 1982, p. 601-602.
Rampino, M. R., and Self, S., 1982, Historic eruptions in Tambora (1815), Krakatau (1883), and Agung (1963), their stratospheric aerosols, and climatic impact: Quaternary Research, v. 18, p. 127-143.
Self, S., Zhao, Jing-Xia, Holasek, R.E., Torres, R.C., and King, A.J., 1996, The atmospheric impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, in Newhall, C.G., Punongbayan, R.S. (eds.), 1996, Fire and mud: Eruptions and lahars of Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines, Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, Quezon City and University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1126 p.
McGee, K.A., Doukas, M.P., Kessler, R. and Gerlach, T., 1997, Impacts of volcanic gases on climate, the environment, and people: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-262, 2 p. Geo-editing (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

text: There is a way around this.  You can create a version of the section you wish to edit as an offshoot of your wikipedia page, with the appropriate referencing, then one of us can simply copy and paste it into the article.  Since you're just talking about one paragraph, this should be easy to do.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

text: It looks like your suggestions have been added.  Thanks for the input.  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Paragraph of atmospheric effects

message: Shouldn't there be some info on the fact that soil which contains volcanic ash is generally very fertile for agriculture? Don't know enough about it myself but seems relevant. Lebanese blond 09:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: bump. An entire article should be made for volcanic related fertility, both for ash, lava, and different types of volcanoes and lava  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.82.17.145 (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increased Fertility 

message: For a five year old article, this article was in bad shape.  Added inline references and a reference section, convert templates, as well as more detail to the body of the article.  The lead wasn't constructed appropriately per wikipedia standards, so a significant portion of it was moved into the body under characteristics, and rewritten to represent what lies within the article.  Much of what was written with the body of the article was in decent shape...it just needed a bit of rearranging to follow more fluidly.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article improvement

message: There are three mechanisms of ash formation: gas release under decompression causing magmatic eruptions; thermal contraction from chilling on contact with water causing phreatomagmatic eruptions and ejection entrained particles during steam eruptions causing phreatic eruptions (Heiken & Wohletz 1985, volcanic ash). I feel that this information should be included, but i am not familiar enough with the referencing system to put it in without screwing it up, and i also dont want to tear apart someone elses text and possibly get a Good Article down graded
The full reference is; Heiken, G. & Wohletz, K. 1985. Volcanic Ash. University of California Press, Berkeley.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russjass (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay put it in and references still look good Russjass (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ash Formation 

message: Ash? Or just a photo with heavy colour bias? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I would guess the color is fairly accurate on the Tate Collection website. Besides, I'm not sure the painting adds much to the topic of volcanic ash. I removed it since the article is already over-crowded with images. Klubbit (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chichester

message: [addendum] "I can't find a volume/tonnage spreadsheet of volcanic ash fall and particulate atmosphere injection over world history, here or elsewhere obvious. Current terrestrial volcanism is several multiples of recent (or historical) awareness. How much closer are we getting (significantly or otherwise) to global nuclear winter? Again, neither easy numbers nor relevant analysis available.2601:601:E04:AE0:6408:6198:2789:8813 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, and welcome to Wiki. I took a look at the NASA source, and you're pretty much right - though it says yes to sulfates and nothing about ash, as opposed to specifically saying no to ash. Feel free to change for the time being, though I would think that volcanic ash must play a role in intercepting / reflecting incoming solar radiation... I'll look for a reference. Awickert (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Atmospheric effects

message: "volcanic ash ...conducts electricity, especially when it is wet".  Does the ash conduct when dry?  Even when wet does it conduct?  This looks like a reference required. Mtpaley (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  conducts electricity 

message: On TV a Swiss International Air Lines chief pilot, if I remember it right, listed four main consequences:
* Sandblasting effect
* Melting of the ash and clogging and out-of-balance of the turbines (cut out)
* Clogging of the sensors, including air speed
* The static charged particles make it impossible to use the radio communication.
but I have no verifiable reference, sorry.   --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote: "Simple lack of oxygen is given as a probable cause of engine failure." I think this claim is doubtfull. KLM Flight 867 and BA Flight 9 did not have this problem, as I understand. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's given by actual, reliable Sources. No Doubt this has to be mentioned! --Itu (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Does anyone think about direct human impacts? I remember having heared that volcanic products can consist of hazardous substances any now and then. Fatalities at lakes with sulfur oxides or carbon oxides got reported in past times. If humans are going on an airplane it can impact them as well even if the air is going trough some filters and a compressor before its useable. this might even be a danger if pilots and all others were using oxygen masks for improving their breath functionality. (humans can absorb any sort of substance via their skin, having extra oxygen does not mean you dont get any other air intake to your lungs). in general a paragraph on possbile human impacts is missing. --13:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation 

message: I think this is an overkill sometimes. We can't say one and one is two and get a citation.
* Quote: "and coat the plane so much as to add significant weight and change balance"
* Edit summary quote: "never heard that ..."
* Comment: if you coat a plane, you change its weight and balance. But sure, I do not know if it is relevant here before all fuel is burnt.
* "Volcanic ash damages machinery." so "Propellor aircraft are also endangered" too.
* Volcanic ash can "fuse onto the blades and other parts of the turbine, it can erode and destroy parts." And so it can drive a machinery rotating at high angular velocity out-of-balance. Again if the mass changes, it changes the balance too. 
* Its common sense. After primary, secondary and college you must know that. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Ash is not ejected to 30,000ft as suggested by Dr. Dougal Jerram. As an earth scientist at a respected university he knows this and should not be peddling this over simplified description to Joe public. Ash rises buoyantly due to its temperature when ejected. Very simple proof of this is to view a pyroclastic eruption running down the side of a volcano and the ash cloud "taking off" to 30,000ft from it. Often as far as the base of the volcano, where it is impossible that it is ejected.
Ltryan (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a primary source, you can either make the change yourself and provide the proper inline reference, or put a link to the primary source here so someone else can make your requested change.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Do not undestand this. The quote does not talk about 30,000 ft. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Ltryan, 20 April 2010 

message: The second paragraph about the effect of volcanic ash needs to be deleted, as it does not conform to the current state of understanding of volcanic effects.  
(Briefly, volcanic ash only has a short residence time in the stratosphere, and it is volatile gases, specifically SO2 which have multi-year residence times and cause the climatic effects referenced to ash particles in this paragraph.  Given the current interest in volcanic ash, this paragraph should be deleted, and maybe reference to the wikipedia article on volcanoes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano third paragraph of volcanic effects, which gets the issue correct, inserted for now.  I also put my concern down on the talk page, but thought I'd double up here since this is very topical at the moment and the wiki page is probably getting a lot of hits and propagating a scientific 'urban myth'.  Thanks)
Geo-editing (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Deleted the cooling through ash (citation needed really). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Geo-editing, 20 April 2010 

message: Within the next few weeks I plan to re write the entire volcanic ash page to provide more details on ash formation and its physical and chemical properties. This re write will also include a large discussion on other impacts of ash, other than on aircraft. This will bring the article up to date with current scientific understanding. Grantw13 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest this photo: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/Tephra/30410914-076_large.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.106.16 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re write of entire page 

message: The graph in the section "Grain size" is hard to interpret, since the measurement "phi" is not explained, and the units are not labelled. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size graph? 

message: ASAP pls. 124.105.207.240 (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any warning sign of volcanic ashfall, and is it?