Talk:Novarupta

Info

Vital information on this article about it's formation and height were not on there so I just added them in. - (Erebus555 16:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Valid claims? Numbers needed.

The article says: Only one eruption in historic times, Greece's Santorini in about 1500 B.C., displaced more volcanic matter than Novarupta.

I highly doubt that claim is factual. What about Tambora? Some numbers to back up the claim would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.77 (talk • contribs) 20:56, April 17, 2005 (UTC)

Another issue with claims:

The article claims that "The eruption is said to have had an effect on the level of the Nile River." However the cited reference nowhere says this. The cited reference is about eruptions affecting the rainfall in the Nile valley in ancient times, and doesn't mention Novarupta at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.179.223 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I beleive that the article (stub) 1912 Novarupta eruption is (will) be redundant with Novarupta and as such the content from 1912 Novarupta eruption should be merged into this article and the stub removed. --Burntnickel 11:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Novarupta vs. Mt. Pinatubo

The Mt. Pinatubo article says it is the largest eruption of the 20th century; both can't be right!R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

According to "http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/pinatubo.html" Mt. Pinatubo is number 3 at 5 cubic km and Novarupta ejected 21 cubic km "http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Alaska/description_1912_eruption_novarupta.html". --Burntnickel 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have seen many sources that state that pinatubo was the biggest volcanic eruption since krakatoa and it erupted around 17 cubic km of material and that novarupta or Mt. Katami as it's also known erupted around 15 cubic km. Wiki235 11:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any references for any of these? There seem to be a lot of conflicting claims. (VolcanoWorld claims 30 cubic km!) For what its worth, the Novarupta vent and Mt. Katmai are about six miles apart. There seems to be confusion over the assosication of the names with the eruption and whether to consider Novarupta a separate volcano or just a separate vent of Mt. Karami. (The Smithsonian lists them as separate volcanos "http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1102-18-", and claims Novarupta as the largest of the 20th century). --Burntnickel 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my books refer to the large 1912 Katmai eruption, as do historical newspaper references, and none of them mention Novarupta.Eregli bob (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

We now have reached the point where the Novarupta page and the Pinatubo page each claim to be the second-largest 20th century eruption in at least one location.

Lava Dome vs. Caldera

I'm not sure what references include a caldera for Novarupta. From what I have read Novarupta usually refers to the vent, the eruption and the dome plugging the vent. Certainly there was a caldera forming collapse due to the eruption at Katmai, or is there a reference that considers the subsidence of the area surrounding the vent to be a caldera? --Burntnickel 11:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I had always thought as you did, that Novarupta refers to the vent and lava dome only, and not any caldera. Hence my initial change to the article (getting rid of caldera, putting in lava dome). But a quick glance at the GVP ref showed that "The face of Falling Mountain, behind Novarupta dome, was sheared off by a 2-km-wide collapse around the Novarupta vent" and "a 2-km-wide area of subsidence NW of Trident volcano. The NE side of the Falling Mountain lava dome of the Trident volcanic cluster, as well as Broken Mountain and Baked Mountain, was removed by collapse of the Novarupta depression, which is marked by radial and scalloped arcuate fractures." So I decided to go with the "Caldera with lava dome" phrasing, and added both categories to the article.

This is another article in need of massive expansion. The largest eruption of the 20th century, and with only a couple of paragraphs devoted to it? This is a good candidate to quickly turn into a GA, and maybe even an FA eventually, since so many good refs are available. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing some additional references I agree with the addition of caldera. There is quite a bit of information avaliable on this eruption and as you say it shouldn't take a lot of effort to improve the article quality. I wish I had the time to devote to it. When (if) I get some time I'll take a stab at improving it. --Burntnickel 10:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that if a Wiki editor does not include the primary morphological volcano type as listed on the GVP site, they should probably have some extremely new reference to support it. Volcano type determinations are made by an experienced volcanologist who monitors and evaluates the professional literature very closely (24 references for Novarupta are listed that directly relate to the data included on the GVP site). For Novarupta, the primary type is Caldera, with Lava Dome (look under Synonyms and Subfeatures) as a secondary type. Multiple types are very common. More discussion about types is on the GVP Volcanoes Data Criteria page.GVP Webmaster 14:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this a disagreement with the type listed for Novarupta or just a general comment? (The currently listed type is caldera with lava dome.) --Burntnickel 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment for the further education of those interested in the issue. No problem with how you guys sorted it out for this volcano.GVP Webmaster 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bringing to B

It would be nice if this article was expanded. It surprised me when I saw that something rather significant had such a short article. Thanks, Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

and i love dogs :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.177.223 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from dogs, I have take a stab at cleaning up the article and leaving it in better shape to be expanded. --Burntnickel (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

the Katmai??

According to the article:"located on the Alaska Peninsula in the Katmai..." what the heck is "the Katmai"?? Katmai National Park? How about "Located on the Alaska Penninsula." Senor Cuete (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Changed to Katmai National Park and Preserve, which is where the link went anyway. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad Arithmetic

According to the article: "the 60 hour long eruption expelled 13 to 15 cubic kilometers (3.1 to 3.6 cu mi) of magma, 30 times as much as the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.[3][4][5] The erupted magma resulted in more than 17 cubic kilometers (4.1 cu mi) of air fall and approximately 11 cubic kilometers (2.6 cu mi) of ash-flow tuff[6]". So 4.1 cubic miles of air fall and 2.6 cubic miles of adds up to only 3.1 to 3.6 cubic miles? How about 17 cubic kilometers of air fall and 11 cubic kilometers of of ash flows adding up to 13 to 15 cubic kilometers? Senor Cuete (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Presumably magma expands when it explodes and is deposited as the significantly lower-density materials ash and tuff. I checked the references, including [6], which specifically combines all of these numbers. So it's OK. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Novarupta is not an individual volcano.

It is a vent of Katmai volcano. It is at Katmai where the caldera is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.183.90 (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Russian name?

Why is the Russian name given? What is the Russian connection?—208.54.37.191 (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Another individual curious about this who is aware that America bought the thing in 1867 from the Russians in a bid to hind Amor de Cosmos or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.41 (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Distance to Mount Katmai?

This article says that the Novarupta vent is 2.5 miles from Mount Katmai but the Katmai article says that it's 6 miles from Katmai. So, which is it? Senor Cuete (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Novarupta. 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/20090611011856/http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/search.cgi?search_mode=noPunct&free_form=novarupta&free_form=&free_form=&free_form= to http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/search.cgi?search_mode=noPunct&free_form=novarupta&free_form=&free_form=&free_form=

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) 15:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Human impact

I suggest including more information on the human impact of the eruption. As stated already in the article there was (remarkably) no recorded loss of human life (although lots of wildlife perished). A nice review of sources on this subject is provided in an article by Jeanne Schaaf cited in the following suggested addition, which I suggest might follow the sentence:

"Despite the magnitude of the eruption, no deaths directly resulted."

Eye witness accounts from people located downwind in the path of a thick ash cloud describe the gradual lowering of visibility to next to nothing. Ash threatened to contaminate drinking water and decimate food resources, but the native Alaskans were aided in their survival by traditional knowledge passed down through generations from previous eruptions. However the native villages experiencing the heaviest ash falls were abandoned and the inhabitants relocated.

--Dragonfly360 (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

References

In the absence of objection, I added the above wording to the main article. Also noticed a potentially useful posting by Geology.com: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly360 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Relation to Katmai

The formation of a caldera at Katmai during the eruption of Novarupta implies that the latter is a vent of the former, yet this article, the one about Katmai, and the relevant pages at the GVP website seem to treat the volcanoes as separate; the latter website giving them separate pages, instead of placing them in a single page. Contrast this with the Vestmannaeyjar volcanic system in Iceland, which includes the (sub-)volcanoes Eldfell and Surtsey; the GVP put the latter two in its page for the whole system (Vestmannaeyjar), as opposed to giving them separate pages. The same is true for the Michoacán-Guanajuato volcanic field, in Mexico, and its well-known (sub-)volcano Parícutin and the less well-known Jorullo (among thousands of others in this large field). If there is a reason for regarding Novarupta and Katmai as individual volcanoes, it should be stated in this article and the one for Katmai. ZFT (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References