This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
The April 2010 eruption should be split into its own article. The event is notable, especially considering the air travel disruptions, and it is taking more space that the entire rest of the article, so should be split off for balance reasons.
Is the naming "2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull" OK? or "2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption"? or should "Fimmvörðuháls" be used instead? --
Kslotte (
talk)
11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
There was a discussion about this very topic on the talk page before it was moved and the information lost. Please restore it.
81.157.194.152 (
talk)
12:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
To be precise, Eyjafjallajökull is the name of the glacier, while the volcano is called Eyjafjöll. The name of this article should be changed accordingly, and likewise the same information in other, related articles. --
91.152.143.144 (
talk) 08:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! "Jökull" means "glacier", so it is nonsense to say that a Glacier erupted! The volcano erupted, not the glacier! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
91.42.77.152 (
talk)
13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I see two different principles we could follow. Either we can name the article from where the eruptions have taken place. The problem with that is that only the second eruption took place underneath Eyjafjallajökull. The first one took place in the nearby mountain pass
Fimmvörðuháls. In fact, the Icelandic Wikipedia has separate articles for these two eruptions,
Eldgosið á Fimmvörðuhálsi 2010 and
Eldgosið í Eyjafjallajökli 2010. The other road we can take is to name the article after the erupting mountain, which is
Eyjafjöll, as mentioned above. __
meco (
talk)
13:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Move proposal
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale As the two discussions above would document the current name of this article is a misnomer. It is not the glacier which is erupting, it is the mountain beneath it, and that mountain is called Eyjafjöll. So we have basically two main alternatives:
Refer to the surface location of the eruption, not the volcano itself. This would give the name:
2010 eruptions at Eyjafjallajökull if we name the article after the second and biggest of the two eruptions of April 14, taking place beneath the glacier, or
2010 eruptions at Fimmvörðuháls, if we name the entire incident after the the location of the initial eruption, taking place at the nearby mountain pass.
I cannot come up with more options off the top of my head, however, we need to find something that isn't contributing to the existing misapprehension about place and meaning of the names. __
meco (
talk)
20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Support move and suggest it is "2010 eruptions at Eyjafjallajökull" since that tallies with most reporting of the event
ChrisUK (
talk)
21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Eyjafjöll (literall: "The island mountains") isn't the name of a mountain. It's the name of a mountain range as indicated by the plural "fjöll" suffix. If it was a singular mountain it would be called "Eyjafjall".
Icelandic place names aren't always very consistent in this regard. There are several mountain names in Iceland who ambiguously refer to both an ice cap and a mountain. One example of this is
Tindfjallajökull which is a 19km^2 glacier on the
Tindfjöll mountain range (which is probably >100km^2, I don't have the exact number). If an eruption started under Tindfjallajökull we'd call it "The eruption under Tindfjallajökull" or something like that (there's no "Tindfjall" mountain, the eponymous mountain is simply called "Tindur"). --
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason23:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
And being Norwegian myself (the Norwegian and Icelandic languages are relationally close) I expect that tindur equates with Norwegian tind, meaning simply mountain top or peak or summit. I.e. the Icelandic names are almost all descriptors containing attribute of their eponymic object. __
meco (
talk)
07:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, "Tindur" just means "Peak" and "Tindfjöll" are the "Peak Mountains".
Anyway, as for the rename proposal moving it to something with "Eyjafjöll" in the name is out due to the ambiguity concerns I mentioned.
There is no issue here. The volcano only has one name and it is Eyjafjallajökull. Icelandic volcanos usually don't have names separate from the most prominent geographical feature of the area, be it a glacier, a mountain, an island or something else. --
Bjarki (
talk)
There's still the issue of calling it "eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull" when there's only been one eruption under Eyjafjallajökull in 2010, the other was at Fimmvörðuháls which isn't part of the glacier. --
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason15:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with calling it '2010 eruption at Fimmvörðuháls' to disambiguate it from the current one under the ice cap but both are technically eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull völcano. --
Bjarki (
talk)
21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that I will move the article to
2010 eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in 12 hours unless someone protests. That may not be the final move, but I think we need an impetus to move away from the current name. The discussion of whether or not to separate the two eruptions into their own articles can also continue. __
meco (
talk)
21:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I can drop the year, which means this will be the one article for all eruptions of this volcano. There is only the problem of some sources (including Icelandic) that assert that the eruption under the glacier isn't technically of Eyjafjallajökull volcano, but as I have mentioned before of a new, as of yet unnamed volcano. But I'm not opposed to ignoring that for the time being. __
meco (
talk)
06:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I have made a procedural error, so the move will not take place. I'm not sure what happens now. According to the admin I contacted there isn't consensus for a move. __
meco (
talk)
12:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Move requests generally take 7 days, but that's flexible. The issue here is that there isn't consensus to move, nor where it should move to. Once there's general agreement to move it, and where it needs to move to, I'll happily move ti if it's still move protected.
GedUK12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Meco suggested
Eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano, which has neither "at" nor the year in, and added the possibly unnecessary "volcano" on the end, thus meeting neither of the other two users' comments.
I would suggest just letting the discussion run for another day or so. I'm sure you can reach agreement, but there's no rush.
GedUK13:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A more thorough reading of the discussion should resolve all of those issues which you mention. __
meco (
talk)
13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where it was agreed that tacking "volcano" onto the end was necessary. Indeed, to me this seems either superluous or ridiculous if taken to the general case of how to name similar articles.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to the present discussion taking place in this and the preceding two sections. Other than that I won't spend time and energy arguing a point which isn't important to me. If this process is going to take a little longer, that is fine by me. __
meco (
talk)
05:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose See no reason to move the page. As has already been explained, Icelandic volcanoes are usually named after the most prominent geographic feature: in this case, the volcano, illogical though it may seem to some of us, is known as Eyjafjallajökull, the same name as the icecap. Whilst the move proposal is well intentioned, it is based on a false understanding. I suppose that, before the volcanology and geology were fully understood, it would have appeared to early Icelanders that it was, indeed, the icecap that was erupting.
Skinsmoke (
talk)
18:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know, but do you have a (proper of course) source for the volcano's name being simply Eyjafjallajökull, and that this name is used as any other proper name? There doesn't seem to be consensus for that here, which is why this is being discussed. I suspect it isn't that simple. There has been given more than one explanation of how Icelanders would handle this; ""If an eruption started under Tindfjallajökull we'd call it "The eruption under Tindfjallajökull" or something like that"". The Icelandic wikipedia says ""Eldgosið í Eyjafjallajökull"", where "í" directly translated means "in". There is a reason for why this is being discussed, so discuss, don't trump. What early Icelanders would do doesn't seem relevant at all. I think the money question is; Would they say for instance "Eyjafjallajökull erupted" in Iceland (in correct Icelandic of course)? --
213.167.97.194 (
talk)
03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Two questions here are:-
If two volcanic vents run off the same
magma chamber, how far apart must they be to be two volcanoes, not one?
Do we go along with the apparent Icelandic habit of calling a volcano '-jökull' if it has an icecap over it? See the introduction of page
Snæfellsjökull.
The only name that I have seen or heard in news reports here in England is 'Eyjafjallajökull'. I have seen a misspelling Eyjafyoll in
reader's letters to the
Daily Telegraph.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
^69. "News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids". SpaceWeather.com.
http://www.spaceweather.com/. Retrieved 2010-04-21.
This links to
http://www.spaceweather.com/ which today only mentions "ASH AND AURORAS" and while
April 21 talks about Volcanic lightning, there nothing specific to weather that I can see.
This links to is a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and external cites are needed.
That paragraph still requires a reliable source that explicitly discusses the connection between the eruption and long term weather, specifically for the clauses "major
volcanic eruptions that coincide with cyclic
solar minimum activity could produce temporary
global cooling" and "that coincidentally the
earth-facing side of the
Sun is mostly blank". Otherwise they are indeed
original research. -
84user (
talk)
16:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Update. Since the above reversion, new cites have been added that are interesting. The first kind of supports the "it is noted" clause with rewording:
One way to reword the sentence to match the earthobservatory.nasa.gov source might be:
University at Buffalo scientists showed how volcanic eruptions can reverse the influence of sunspots on climate. (here cite
[1])
Someone more familiar with this area could improve on this and better paraphrase the following from that NASA source:
"Whenever scientists thought they had discovered something, say, they were seeing a positive correlation between temperature and sunspots, it would continue like that for several years and, all of a sudden, there would be a reversal and, instead, they would start to see a negative correlation,"
and that from 1930 to 1962 there was a positive sunspot/dust correlation, followed by its reverse. They noted volcanic activity was low during the first 30 years, and by "carefully studying the timing of other volcanic eruptions, we found that they coincided with all of the correlation reversals between sunspots and climate".
So, the source does not really support "major
volcanic eruptions that coincide with cyclic
solar minimum activity could produce temporary
global cooling". I hope this clarifies the reason I add the various tags.
This still leaves the "it is noted" clause, which remains unsupported. The whole clause could be removed without loss I feel. -
84user (
talk) 16:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC) (fix typo and layout
84user (
talk)
16:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC))
It seems to me that the link between solar activity, volcanic activity and global cooling still not fully researched and understood. The logic about it is simple, less solar activity results in less temperature, when coincide with volcanic ash results in more dust in the atmosphere, increase in atmosphere reflectivity, less solar rays reaching the atmosphere and thus cooling effect and extreme weather. Other research is linking increase in solar activity with earthquake and volcanic activity. The speaceweather.com site for today 24 April 2010 is noting that the sun is blank with no sunspots for 9 consecutive days which could mean that the solar minimum did not end yet or weak solar cycle. While I disagree with that the subject paragraph is not relevant, I didn't include original research in here, and I agree with you that someone more familiar or an expert advise could improve the article with better rephrase. After all, thank you for your remarks, it helped both of us read and understand more about the subject.
Nasser z (
talk)
08:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The only mention of a VEI grading occurs in the introduction and relates to the eruption on March 20. There should be more related to the second eruption. __
meco (
talk) 17:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Preliminary estimate of VEI4 for 2nd eruption published by Smithsonian magazine on 22 April 2010 now added.
Nasser z (
talk)
18:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Unit conversions
I went a bit 'crazy' last night on unit conversions and anywhere I found Kilometres I added Miles, Metres-Feet, etc.(22-23 places) Perhaps I was a bit too enthusiastic,? but not everyone uses metres/feet, kilometres/miles and vice versa, so we need to try to cater, don't we?
There are inconsistencies, depending on the original figures quoted, Vertical heights are normally(?) in metres and I converted as feet, but heights are sometimes given originally in miles or kilometres/thousands of metres. We may need to see if we need to be totally consistent, or probably stick to exactly what units the references give originally. ie If a reference says 4,000 metres, not call it 4 kilometres? Any views on this? --
220.101.28.25 (
talk)
08:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Just for your information, altitude in air travel is always measured in feet, even in metric-centric western europe. So in the context of ash cloud altitude and air travel, 35000 ft makes more sense than the respective amounts of meters. (Some countries, such China, measures altitude in meters though)
Boaworm (
talk)
09:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate your feedback. I actually have a bit of an aviation background (though ground based), so I was pretty sure altitude in feet was correct, but basically I converted as above, using the existing quantity in the text. So mostly it has ended up km and miles, with a few km and thous. ft) My thought is that many people understand one system better than the other, so we likely need both (metric/'imperial'). Flyers will understand thousands of feet, but myself and a lot of others likely understand km/miles better. May also have to check editors have not used their preferred system, rather than what the sources said, which I feel we should stick with --
220.101.28.25 (
talk)
12:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It is probably best to be explicit when using the convert template – it makes it easier for subsequent editors to see what is where. So write {{convert|50000|ft|m}} if you want 50,000 feet (15,000 m) [for flight paths] or {{convert|5000|m|ft}} for 5,000 metres (16,000 ft) for mountains. [Standard scientific notation for volcanoes is to use SI, and in any case use SI for Iceland]. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
11:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If you're improving this article and don't speak Icelandic, but need something translated and Google Translate doesn't work: E-mail me at avarab@gmail.com or reply here. I'm sure others would be willing to help as well. --
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Please add audio files for all Icelandic words in the article. Also, if possible, insert English- style phonetic notation approximations of Icelandic words, as, at least in the US, use of International phonetic symbols is not widespread. Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Skysong263 (
talk •
contribs)
13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
We have at least three pictures of the ash plume taken on the same day from a similar location. Which one should be used in the article? --
Bjarki (
talk)
01:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Image A did not not meet resolution and quality criteria of Wikimedia when I replaced it. I see there is now a higher-resolution version available. Are you sure it is correctly white-balanced, it looks very bright and yellow, if you compare it to the other two taken under very similar conditions? I also think the framing contains too much ground.
Image C is of very poor quality, with major jpeg artifacts and complete lack of sharpness.
Bottom line IMO is that we should have a newer picture there though, maybe someone has a picture from middle of May? I haven't been down there in good enough weather for a while myself.
Boaworm (
talk)
10:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree on pic C. I did adjust the contrast and saturation of picture A somewhat to get rid of the gray/blueish haze in the air and hopefully better represent the scene as it would be seen through human eyes. I also worked on the plume specifically to get better definition of the details in the smoke. I put the original master version straight from the camera on my
user page along with the adjusted one for comparison. There's no shortage of good pictures out there, we could maybe find something with the
appropriate CC-licence on flickr. --
Bjarki (
talk)
15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Both photos are brigher / more yellow than I remembered it from that day. It looks artificial somehow. Of the two, I prefer the master. A friend of mine took
this picture on the same day, it also has this darker color that I remembered.
Boaworm (
talk)
15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The chapter Volume of erupted material and magma discharge should include some links to estimates on the amount of water (H2O), SO2 and other gasses, evaporated during the eruption... There is some hint here
Gas composition and flux report, linked from
Chemical composition linked from
Eruption in Eyjafjallajökull on the page of Institute of Earth Sciences, Iceland..., but is not sufficiently quantitative...
Why does this article refer to Eyjafjallajökull rather than Guðnasteinn - i.e. to the icecap rather than to the volcano, whereas the Article on Katla refers to the volcano, rather than to the icecap Mýrdalsjökull?
Theeurocrat (
talk)
13:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Surely too much editing in too short a timespan is no longer a problem!
However, I also am writing here to propose adding a section -- "Fictional depictions of the Eyjafjallajökull eruption". It was a key plot point in
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013 film). - Tenebris 02:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.91.170.20 (
talk)
Article locked? Want to add section on health effects
Hi
I would like to add a section about health effects of the eruption, by now several research papers have been published,
That said, however, one should exercise restraint in citing one's own work on Wikipedia. (See, for instance,
WP:SELFCITE.) It can be very helpful if there are good secondary sources – review articles and the like – that help to place a particular work in context.
TenOfAllTrades(
talk)
16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: