Talk:Mount Aniakchak

List of plant species
Available here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cave-adapted species
This source may offer information on a species here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Report draft
If there is a final version of this report (website says it's a draft) it could be useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Contemporary newspapers
Didn't include any contemporary newspapers, but if folks want them here is a list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Aniakchak II date
Huge thanks to @Jo-Jo Eumerus for expanding the article. I would like to add that Aniakchak II is securely dated to 1628±1 BCE using dendrochronology, which eliminates any age uncertainty. The date 1623±4 BCE, reported by Pearce2017, was based on GICC05 calibrated against the IntCal13 curve. This carried over the uncertainty of the calibration curve. This uncertainty was resolved when sulfate spikes from the 17th century BCE perfectly matched dendrochronology-dated tree-ring anomalies. The tephras in one of the sulfate spikes were geochemically linked to Aniakchak II.

Now the date 1629 BCE is used to anchor GICC21. Aleral Wei (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I really wonder if the problem with dating Thera is the overreliance on just one dating technique (radiocarbon) for every sample. Has anyone ever tried non-radiocarbon methods like argon-argon or surface exposure dating? For that matter, do we have a sure idea how long it took? Sorry, back to Aniakchak, I've put that date in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The debate just revolves around whether the eruption occurred within a few decades before or after the accession of Ahmose I (ca. 1560 BCE), marking the beginning of the New Kingdom. Among all the techniques of radioisotope dating, only radiocarbon comes close to this level of precision for Holocene samples (in the case of Ar/Ar, too young to decay enough 40Ar to be measured with meaningful accuracy). With luck, WMD dates may have sub-decadal uncertainty, but the samples found in the volcanic layer are olive branches, which are unsuitable for WMD.
 * Ice core or dendrochronology holds more potential. Thus far, no Thera tephra has been located in any core, and no tree-ring event has been unambiguously identified as originating from Thera. Frankly, we are stuck. Aleral Wei (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I figure that the problem with the ice cores is that if Thera was a phreatomagmatic eruption, water would have scrubbed most of the sulfur and altered the climate response á la Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai. A Hunga Tonga-like explosion might also explain the tsunami-mass contradiction noted here, too. But I don't think we have much knowledge on how to spot Hunga Tonga-like eruptions from ice cores. Sorry, I think I should continue on Talk:Minoan eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Settlement dates

 * The Alaskan Peninsula was settled about 7,000 years ago by people who practiced hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

The cited source is from 2007, which in turn cites anthropologist David Damas in a document from 1984 for the claim on p. 23. (Clark 1984). This means that the dating is at least 40 years old, but likely much older than that. My understanding, and I could very well be wrong in this instance, is that within the last ten years, all of these settlement dates have been pushed back much farther in time and a lot of the history has been or is being completely rewritten. At first glance, based on recent sources, 7,000 years sounds far too recent. Our article on Paleo-Indians indicates that the dating fluctuates wildly, and I've seen dates as old as 30,000 years in other works, although it isn't clear how that applies to Alaska in particular. It might be instructive to look into this at a future date and see if there are any newer sources on the settlement dates. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that Alaskan population history is not my specialty. But it wouldn't surprise me if that date has been superseded since then; consider that Monte Verde goes back to about 14,500 years ago and the people there must have at some point passed through Alaska. It's just that I can't find a source on the Alaskan Peninsula from a quick read. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I was reminded of the recent dating controversy of White Sands fossil footprints, which skeptics tried, but failed, to shoot down.  It's now thought to be dated to between 21,000 and 23,000 years ago.  I also read something similar about other finds in California.  My understanding is that if you tried to show this, in let's say 1984, people would have laughed you out of the room.  I'm just saying there's been a sea change in the acceptance of older dates in North America over time.  Another point that I've observed, is that even though there's always going to be discussion about the accuracy of dates, my reading of older textbooks on this subject tells me that scientists in the 20th century were far more hesitant to think in terms of deeper time than they are today. I recall reading about at least one famous professor at the University of California, Berkeley in the early part of that century who held the study of Ohlone people back for decades due to his control of the department and influence.  Sometimes the greatest threats to scientific advancement and understanding come from within because people are entirely unwilling to change their beliefs when new evidence arises. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Vegetation growth

 * vegetation growth was slow for up to a century at 1,100 kilometers (680 mi) from the volcano

Is this true, though? Ecologists were surprised to discover how fast vegetation grew back in the wasteland left behind by the Mount St. Helens eruption. And on the Big Island of Hawaii and elsewhere, it's remarkable how fast plant life gets going provided there is wind dispersal and rain. Something tells me this is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * On second thought and deeper reflection, a century of slow plant growth seems like a reasonable statement given the magnitude of the destruction. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Bullet points
Fantastic work on this! One thing, and I don't mean to be intrusive. I would suggest removing the bullet points in the hazards section. It's a bit listy. This otherwise looks comprehensive enough for FAC at some point. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Mm, thing is that it's a list of different hazards. I don't like passing off a list as a not-a-list, it reads off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)