Talk:Supervolcano

The whole what data we use and VEI9 talk we finely have to talk about...
well this is the hard part to talk about but. it was recently found out that 2 volcanoes might have had a eruption volume of 10,000 KM or more this is base on ... Flat landing brook, stating to have had a super eruption of AT LEAST yellowstone/toba , both are at 2,000 cubic km , it also list its eruption at 12,000 cubic for flat landing brook that at least all happend less then a million of years , making the dispute range from 2,000-12,000 cubic km.

the next one is Toba, this one has 3 different listing 1978 listing:2,000 km 2004 listing:2,800 km 2014 listing:13,200 km

the whole lower range of both 2000 km in a way.

but toba is newer range of 13,200, ive seen at least for star radi wiki page that its best to only use the most recent info.

however if we do this then we have to figure out if the VEI scale stops at 8 or goes to 9, because some source says the scale stops at 8 but some state it contiues to 9 , this is very confusing.

seen here makes it a bit more confusing, that for most VEI8 , it will show as VEI8 and magnitude 8.0 , but for toba its listed as VEI8 and magnitude 9.1 , im not sure what to say , like this could point it stops at 8 but it could be that the site isn't able to put vei9 , toba is the only volcano to have its magnitude as 1 point above its vei scale.

so the question is what do we do?Joshoctober16 (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Magnitude and VEI are just two different classification schemes for explosive eruptions, and they don't necessarily agree even though they often do.
 * VEI was introduced by Newhall and Self in 1982 and is based bulk volume (volume of deposits). VEI is categorical variable, and any eruption >= 1000-km3 is 8, so there is no 9 or higher in VEI.
 * Magnitude was introduced by Pyle in 1995 and is based mass of deposits (equivalent to volume of magma, DRE). Magnitude is continuous variable (not categorical), has no upper bound, allows fractional part, and the formula is log10(deposits mass in kg)-7 Aleral Wei (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Flood Basalt Map.jpg

Definition of supervolcano, VEI, magnitude
There does not exist a consensual definition of "Supervolcano" or "Supereruption" in literature. Proposed definitions, however, do exist but not necessarily adopted in all studies. Here's two:

1) Supervolcano is a volcano that has had an explosive eruption with VEI = 8 (i.e. volume of deposits ≥ 1000 km3). For example, de Silva 2008 and USGS Q&A page

2) Supervolcano as that has had an explosive eruption with Magnitude ≥ 8.0 (i.e. mass of deposits ≥ 10^15 kg). For example, Geological society working group, Self 2006, Miller & Wark 2010, Bryan et al 2010, Wilson et al 2021, de Silva and Self 2022

Magnitude (M) is calculated as follow:

M = log10(mass of deposits in kg) - 7

The second definition is far more popular among volcanologists who studies large eruptions. Also noted, the '''VEI classification creator, Stephen Self, no longer uses VEI≥8 as the supervolcano criteria. Stephen Self has adopted M≥8.0 as supervolcano criteria in this recent paper.'''

It is imperative for this page to at least include both definitions.

The table is also confusing. The table header says bulk volume while most volumes included are DRE/magma volume. Best to separate them into two columns Aleral Wei (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Terminology
I think someone already flagged it, but the terminology subsection needs to be updated. Quote from the source someone had already put there: (https://www.wired.com/2013/10/the-rise-of-supervolcano/)

"But when does it get into the geologic literature? It takes a while although it gets used in other disciplines. In 2001, the word shows up in journal articles from Near East Archeology (referring to Toba) and *Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry *(referring to Yellowstone, for what might be the first time). Also, the popular press book *Volcanoes *by Peter Clarkson uses it to talk about massive eruptions in Idaho. However, it isn't until 2002 that it shows up in geologic literature, again, starting with asteroid impact theory (namely, alternatives). C.R. Chapman uses the term in a Geological Society of America publication called "Impact lethality and risks in today's world: Lessons for interpreting Earth history" and a paper in The Holocene refers to a supervolcano when discussing European bog oaks of all things, but does so to refer back to Keys' ideas of a volcanic eruption in 535 A.D. Neither of these actually define a "supervolcano," but rather just mention them offhandedly.

In fact, the first truly geologic publication focused on a "supervolcano" that can be found in Google Scholar is from 2002 by the infamous R.B. Trombley discussing prediction of eruptions at Yellowstone. Trombley was an amateur geologist who made his "Southwest Volcano Research Centre" seem like a major research center when it was really his trailer. He duped people into buying his false "eruption prediction" software and was interviewed during the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull. It was then when it was found out that he was a fraud. That being said, he attributes "supervolcano" to a BBC documentary in 2000, likely based on Keys' Catastrophe book. So, the use of "supervolcano" in geology was launched, in a sense, by one of its greatest frauds."

It would be good to update the terminology page with this, or a shortened version as apposed to just stating "More than fifty years after Byers' review was published, the term supervolcano was popularised by the BBC popular science television program Horizon in 2000, referring to eruptions that produce extremely large amounts of ejecta" as it is misleading Berg998 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)