You're right, I just corrected the article.It should be "...into Arabic numbers".
So is a 3,600 year stable orbit really impossible? Keep in mind that the closest star to us is Promixa Centauri, about 4.25 light years away,
A cataclysmic eruption of Thera (Santorini) was dated to 1628BC from carbon dating of ash, and from tree rings as far away as Irish bogs, and Californian bristlecone pines. The Thera explosion, maybe fifty times larger than Krakatoa [...]
The eruption of Thera is estimated to have been five times larger than the Krakatoa eruption.
Dendochronolgy (based both on Irish oaks and Swedish pines) confirms that the eruption of Aniakchak occurred in the first half of the 17th century. In addition, it provides more reliable datings than ice cores, which make this eruption virtually concomitant with Thera's:
The Avelino eruption refers to an eruption of Mount Vesuvius. It is estimated to have had a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 6, making it larger and more catastrophic than Vesuvius' more famous and well-documented AD 79 eruption that wiped out Pompeii.
"Notice also that those four volcanoes are located in the Northern Hemisphere. The southernmost one being Thera at 36°N longitude, while Saint Helens and Aniakchak are above 45°N. "
I noticed it, too. It should be "latitude".Another question related to the geographical location of the volcanoes in question, as cited below, two paragraphs above the illustration depicted as "SO4 concentration - GISP vs. Taylor Dome":
As Thera is located at 36°N latitude and 25°E longitude, Saint Helens at 53°N latitude and 2°W longitude, and Aniakchak at 56°N latitude and 158°W longitude, I think you are referring to latitude and not to longitude. Is that correct?
You understood correctly. It was a mistake, that I've corrected in the original article.Either I misunderstood the meaning, or the huge difference between 5 and 50 is a mistake...
CorrectedThe first bolded word should be spelled: Dendrochronology. The second bolded part should be spelled: the 17th century B.C.
CorrectedThe bolded word should be spelled: Avellino.
You're right. I permuted "longitude" and "latitude". It's corrected now.As Thera is located at 36°N latitude and 25°E longitude, Saint Helens at 53°N latitude and 2°W longitude, and Aniakchak at 56°N latitude and 158°W longitude, I think you are referring to latitude and not to longitude. Is that correct?
The diagram above is a temperature reconstruction based on a Vostok (Antarctica) ice core. We can see a pink arrow showing a temperature drop ca. 10,800 BP. Notice that this temperature drop is moderate (about 0.5°C) compared to the three other events. In addition, this temperature change does not appear in the Greenland ice core. We'll see later why the temperature increase was so limited and localized.
I used the term "relatively", because the carbon dating of eruptions (analysis of lava layers) is approximate and exhibits about a 5% uncertainty margin. This means that an eruption carbon dated back to 10,000 BP actually happened within a 90% certainty between 10,250 BP and 9,750 BP. It's a five century uncertainty margin, and it's not even sure the eruption falls within this bracket.
Just in case and for the possible readers' curiosity, the source of the quoted Bamboo Annals ends on nothing, because URL shows this:
__ht tp://books.google.com/books?id=ZkxkAAAAMAAJ&oe=UTF-8NoticehowVogelmentionsacoincidenceofnumberoferuptions.
https://www.sott.net/article/[%5E81275]:JamesLegge,title(TheChineseClassics):Vol.III,PartI(London:Tr%C3%BCbner&Co,1865),125
.
The strike-through part should be deleted in order to get to BooksGoogle redirection (and forget about space I put between the two "t" at http, as I had to do so to make it clear).
I put in bold "increase" because I do not understand why it is not "drop" instead, as the whole meaning is not about increasing. Am I wrong?
Two paragraphs under the Oppenheimer quote (mentioned at the beginning), there is this:
I used the term "relatively", because the carbon dating of eruptions (analysis of lava layers) is approximate and exhibits about a 5% uncertainty margin. This means that an eruption carbon dated back to 10,000 BP actually happened within a 90% certainty between 10,250 BP and 9,750 BP. It's a five century uncertainty margin, and it's not even sure the eruption falls within this bracket.
5% + 90% = 95%. Shouldn't it be 5% and 95% to get to 100% or (and as maths are not my cup of tea) am I misunderstanding something in percentage?
Another (very little) one I had not noticed so far: is there any reason why the word "Event" in the "The 7200 BP (5200 BC) Events" title has a final "s", as all the others have not?
Other combustion aerosols are acetate oxalate, NH4 and formate.
In four ice-core sequences from Greenland, Antarctica, and Russia, similar anomalous peaks in other combustion aerosols occur, including nitrate, oxalate, acetate, and formate, reflecting one of the largest biomass-burning episodes in more than 120,000 y.
Altair said:Combination of acetate and oxalate sounds strange since they are both salts. Missing comma between acetate and oxalate?
Notice that nowhere is an eruption mentioned. Despite this, until now, a volcanic eruption remains the sole hypothesis despite the absence of a fitting candidate. Indeed, Urzelina volcano, Tall volcano and Putana volcano present eruption dates that don't match the timing of this observed 'veil'.
Notice that nowhere is an eruption mentioned. Despite this, until now, a volcanic eruption remains the sole hypothesis despite the absence of a fitting candidate. Indeed and despite dates of eruption occurring before or after 1808, Urzelina volcano (date?), Tall volcano (date?) and Putana volcano (date?) present eruption dates that don't match the timing of this observed 'veil'.
Yes, a coma was missing, it's fixed now.
Since you're around Pierre, hereafter something else if I may.
Under the 2nd quote from Guevara et al., there is the name of three volcanoes:
Notice that nowhere is an eruption mentioned. Despite this, until now, a volcanic eruption remains the sole hypothesis despite the absence of a fitting candidate. Indeed, Urzelina volcano, Tall volcano and Putana volcano present eruption dates that don't match the timing of this observed 'veil'.
I could find:
- the Putana volcano located on the border between Bolivia and Chile;
- the Urzelina one which is named "Bocas de Fogo" and located on the island of Sao Jorge in Azores;
But I couldn't find any Tall volcano; instead there is a Taal complex volcano located on the island of Luzon in the Philippines.
Is there a misspelling for the third one?
I also was wondering if it could help understanding in a better way the goal of the sentence above by specifying that these three volcanoes had eruptions before or after (adding the specific dates?) 1808 which cannot fit with the "veil" event?