1) What type of volcano is most likely to form when magma is high in silica?

Would cinder cone or composite volcano be the most likely one when magma is high in silica, or both types of volcanoes are equally possible?

2) How quickly can a volcano form?

3) "There are 2 major volcanic belts: circum-Pacific belt and Mediterranean belt. About 20% of all active volcanoes are in the Mediterranean belt" (quote)

Is Mediterranean belt the same as the Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt, or is it just including the volcanoes along the Mediterranean area (not including the Himalayas?

The mountains near the Mediterranean are the Alps mountains, but are they volcanoes? If not, where are the 20% of volcanoes near there? Why are there volcanoes in Italy (e.g. Vesuvius)? Does that mean that the Alps are volcanoes?

Would anyone like to share your knowledge about volcanoes? I appreciate for your time! :)

1) What type of volcano is most likely to form when magma is high in silica?

Rhyolitic volcanoes form when a magma is particularly high in silica content (over 66% I believe is the figure for rhyolite). High silica only, it comes out like toothpaste, and forms a volcano which has layers like an enormous onion. This is because the magma stays in place around the vent, and is literally pushed out of the way by any new extrusion of lava. When rhyolite is rich in both gas and silica, the whole thing just blows sky-high because of the enormous buildup in pressure.

Would cinder cone or composite volcano be the most likely one when magma is high in silica, or both types of volcanoes are equally possible?

See above.

2) How quickly can a volcano form?

With monogenetic eruptions like Paracutin, which burst out of a Mexican cornfield in 1943, literally overnight. The Auckland and Whangarei volcanic fields in New Zealand are like that, which is what makes living there such a chancy thing.

3) "There are 2 major volcanic belts: circum-Pacific belt and Mediterranean belt. About 20% of all active volcanoes are in the Mediterranean belt" (quote)

Is Mediterranean belt the same as the Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt, or is it just including the volcanoes along the Mediterranean area (not including the Himalayas?

The Mediterranean Sea is the last remnant of the Tethys Sea, which ran east to west across the southern edge of what would later become Eurasia. As Gondwanaland came together gradually, the Tethys was squeezed out of existence. In about 50 million years time the Mediterranean Sea will have gone the same way as the rest of the Tethys, crushed out by the collision of Europe and Africa, moving up from the south. The Med will be replaced by a Himalayan-type range of fold mountains from the impact. To answer your question the various volcanic belts from the Med to Asia are all part of the same vast system, because they're all the result of the same enormous series of collisions.

The mountains near the Mediterranean are the Alps mountains, but are they volcanoes? If not, where are the 20% of volcanoes near there? Why are there volcanoes in Italy (e.g. Vesuvius)? Does that mean that the Alps are volcanoes?

The northern edge of the African Plate is subducting under southern Europe, which is pushing up fold-mountains (such as the Italian Alps, the Dolomites, the high country of Austria/Switzerland/southern Germany.) The intrusion of Africa under Europe also creates volcanoes, where the edge of the descending African Plate reaches a depth of about 70 miles. Directly above that point, the rising magma plumes create volcanoes when they reach the surface.

Would anyone like to share your knowledge about volcanoes? I appreciate for your time! :)

I hope this has been some use to you.

From the online encyclopedia Wikipidea:

"If the erupting magma contains a high percentage (>65%) of silica the lava is called felsic or "Acidic" and tends to be very viscous (not very fluid) and is pushed up in a blob that will solidify relatively quickly."

Therefore, a vocanoe high in silica will form more quickly because it will solidify faster rather than just flow out over the surrounding surface. It will then build up from there. When silica content is high, a composite volcanoe is more likely to form because after multiple eruptions, the layers will be more likely to build up because the multiple layers solidify on top of each other more quickly.

"Cinder cones result from eruptions that throw out mostly small pieces of rock that build up around the vent. These can be relatively short-lived eruptions that produce a cone-shaped hill perhaps 30 to 300 m high."

How quickly can a volcanoe form? Almost instantaneously. Within minutes. Say for example that you are sitting on top of an old mountain in the Rockies that may or may not have been formed by a volcanoe - it may have been formed by a hot spot uplift. Yet there may be hot magma below it. Suddenly the pressure within erupts and explodes out creating a new volcanoe.

The Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt is one of the two Earth's most active major volcanic mountain building systems and creates about 20% of the Earth's volcanoes. It is along a fault in a plate boundary and produces numerous earthquakes in that area. The other major active belt is the East-Asian, Cordille-ran, Circum-Pacific belt system. The Mediterranean Belt is part of the Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt system. I sometimes heard it called the "Alpino-Mediterranean belt." Basically, you have to look at the wording of the geological terms and define the individual terms accordingly. For example: "Eura" means European, "Asian" means Asia, therefore Euarasian means "consisting of both Europe & Asia." "Melanesia" includes all the areas northeast of Australia till you get into the Asian continent. Get it?

So the entire Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt includes this entire area, including the Mediterranean region where there is a plate boundary. But the word "Mediterranean Belt" is sometimes confusing because it refers to the entire Mediterranean basin area, the flat forested regions, and also the very ancient historical mountains that were created when Pangea was still seperating:

"Eastern Mediterranean are regarded as an accretional mosaic of terrains of Gondwanian, Tethyan, Eurasian and sometimes controversial origin....the Mediterranean belt during the Precambrian-early Mesozoic, the generation and development of oceanic basins took place the present structure of these basins is marked by rocks of ophiolitic association....As a result of horizontal displacements of the certain lithospheric plates within the Mediterranean belt during the Precambrian-early Mesozoic, the generation and development of oceanic basins took place the present structure of these basins is marked by rocks of ophiolitic association....Eurasiatic and Afro-Arabian plates at the junction of European and Asiatic branches of the Mediterranean (Alpine-Himalayan) fold belt. Its geological structure is built up mainly by Mesozoic and Cenozoic deposits....Horizontal displacement of the ancient East-European and African platforms, as well as of certain lithospheric block (or plates) within the Mediterranean belt during the Precambrian-Early Mesozoic, the generation and development of oceanic baseins took place. In the present structures, these basins are marked by rocks of ophiolitic association....The closure of the Mesotethys ocean, as well as of the Paleotethys relic basin, occurred as a result of movements which spread from North to South. In particular, only the northern part of the Mediterranean belt was affected by Bathonian (Adygean), Late Cimmerian (pre-Cretaceouse) and Austrian movements. These epochs of tectonic activity are associated with intense manifestions of andesitic volcanism and granitoid plutonism, due to the processes of subduction on the continental margin of the oceanic basins."
http://www.ggs.org.ge/geol-geo.htm

See how complex this gets in geological terms?

In the Eurasian-Melanesian or Alpide fault zone, New Zealand probably has the most active volcanoes. Mount Etna and Ferdinandea are still active in Italy but Mount Vesuvius has not shown any signs of being active.

1) What type of volcano is most likely to form when magma is high in silica?

Would cinder cone or composite volcano be the most likely one when magma is high in silica, or both types of volcanoes are equally possible?

2) How quickly can a volcano form?

3) "There are 2 major volcanic belts: circum-Pacific belt and Mediterranean belt. About 20% of all active volcanoes are in the Mediterranean belt" (quote)

Is Mediterranean belt the same as the Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt, or is it just including the volcanoes along the Mediterranean area (not including the Himalayas?

The mountains near the Mediterranean are the Alps mountains, but are they volcanoes? If not, where are the 20% of volcanoes near there? Why are there volcanoes in Italy (e.g. Vesuvius)? Does that mean that the Alps are volcanoes?

Would anyone like to share your knowledge about volcanoes? I appreciate for your time! :)

Because you like asking questions about volcanos. What is the mother of all volcanos (supervolcanos and alike) and when did it last erupt in Earth's history? Please be kind enough to give us your evidence and facts supporting your answer.

May_wentee :D

Ha!
I knew it!
Norman. Okeydoke. Novacaine. And now May_wentee. Is everyone who signs their name at the end of their posts here you?

Please be kind enough to give us your evidence and facts supporting your answer.

May_wentee :D
Your question is not worded with the appropriate scientific terminology to give an accurate reply. No one mentioned "supervolcanoes." You must be Chinese, right? "May Wen Tee" or in other words "Mei Wen Ti": in Chinese means "no problem" or "no question asked." Cute little psuedonym.

Your question is not worded with the appropriate scientific terminology to give an accurate reply. No one mentioned "supervolcanoes." You must be Chinese, right? "May Wen Tee" or in other words "Mei Wen Ti": in Chinese means "no problem" or "no question asked." Cute little psuedonym.

Nice excuse. I guess if you can't answer the question then someone else can.

May_wentee :D

Ha!
I knew it!
Norman. Okeydoke. Novacaine. And now May_wentee. Is everyone who signs their name at the end of their posts here you?

Is Judas still crying? We all sure hope not.

May_wentee :D

Xylene, I learned a lot from your post, thank you! :)

Rhyolitic volcanoes form when a magma is particularly high in silica content (over 66% I believe is the figure for rhyolite). High silica only, it comes out like toothpaste, and forms a volcano which has layers like an enormous onion. This is because the magma stays in place around the vent, and is literally pushed out of the way by any new extrusion of lava. When rhyolite is rich in both gas and silica, the whole thing just blows sky-high because of the enormous buildup in pressure.
By rhyolitic volcano, which specific type of volcano do you mean? (Volcanoes are usually divided into 3 types based on shape and composition: shield, cinder cone, and composite.)

Given that the magma is high in silica, is it more likely to form a cinder cone volcano or a composite volcano? Or both cinder cone and composite volcano are possible to form(like a 50:50 chance)? Or is one type much more likely to form (e.x. cinder cone volcano) than the other (e.x. composite volcano)?


With monogenetic eruptions like Paracutin, which burst out of a Mexican cornfield in 1943, literally overnight. The Auckland and Whangarei volcanic fields in New Zealand are like that, which is what makes living there such a chancy thing.
Is Paricutin in Mexico the most quickly formed known volcano? I have found out that it rose more than 40 meters in 1 day when it was growing the fastest. How slowly can a slow-building volcano rise 40 meters in height, can they take up to millions of years?


The Mediterranean Sea is the last remnant of the Tethys Sea, which ran east to west across the southern edge of what would later become Eurasia. As Gondwanaland came together gradually, the Tethys was squeezed out of existence. In about 50 million years time the Mediterranean Sea will have gone the same way as the rest of the Tethys, crushed out by the collision of Europe and Africa, moving up from the south. The Med will be replaced by a Himalayan-type range of fold mountains from the impact. To answer your question the various volcanic belts from the Med to Asia are all part of the same vast system, because they're all the result of the same enormous series of collisions.
Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt goes all the way from the west Pacific Islands, Asia (including Himalayas which are not volcanoes), and southern Europe. Does the Mediterranean volcanic volcanic belt only include the southern Europe part, or is it essentially interchangeable (the same as) with the Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt?


The northern edge of the African Plate is subducting under southern Europe, which is pushing up fold-mountains (such as the Italian Alps, the Dolomites, the high country of Austria/Switzerland/southern Germany.) The intrusion of Africa under Europe also creates volcanoes, where the edge of the descending African Plate reaches a depth of about 70 miles. Directly above that point, the rising magma plumes create volcanoes when they reach the surface.
"The intrusion of Africa under Europe also creates volcanoes" ==> are these volcanoes in the Alps area, or same other places?

Nice excuse. I guess if you can't answer the question then someone else can.
Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a "super volcano." But we've already posted that Mauna Loa in Hawaii is the Earth's Largest Volcano - and also the Earth's largest mountain if you measure a mountain from the base up irrespective of sea level.

The most active volcanoe is the Stromboli Volcano off the south coast of Italy: it has been erupting nearly continuously for over 2,000 years. Although some scientist consider Kilauea as the most active.

The four most active volocanoes that emit the most lava are: Kilauea(Hawaii), Mt Etna (Italy), Piton de la Fournaise, (Reunion), Nyamuragira, (Congo)

[QUOTE=valich]Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a "super volcano." But we've already posted that Mauna Loa in Hawaii is the Earth's Largest Volcano - and also the Earth's largest mountain if you measure a mountain from the base up irrespective of sea level.

I guess TOBA (Circa: 72,000BC) was just 'Fluke'. No 'Supervolcano'. Right?

May_wentee :D

[QUOTE=valich]Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a "super volcano." But we've already posted that Mauna Loa in Hawaii is the Earth's Largest Volcano - and also the Earth's largest mountain if you measure a mountain from the base up irrespective of sea level.

I guess TOBA (Circa: 72,000BC) was just 'Fluke'. No 'Supervolcano'. Right?

May_wentee :D
After studying geology for over two years none of my professors ever mentioned the word "super volcano." I looked through all thirty-five of my geology books and dictionaries and the word "super volcano" is never mentioned.

The word "super volcano" is a laymans' term, popularized by the media - and it is not a scientific term - and in your case you are using it to refer to the so-called "Mount Toba (super-volcano), Sumatra, Indonesia, 72,000 B.C."
Yes it was a extremely devastating volcano, but the mass media also referred to Mt. St. Helens as a "super volcano."

However, you do bring up an interesting fact though, in terms of biology:

"72,000 BC Massive super volcano eruption of Toba, North Sumatra. Resulting in severe global cooling and massive loss of life. Confirmed by what is termed a genetic bottleneck. A few thousand human survivors. At this time Sapiens Sapiens is thought to have begun the move out of Africa."
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/chronology.html

I have never heard anything else about this so-called "super" catalysmic event and doubt that it contributed to the devastation claimed in the only article that I found about it describing it in superficial detail. This is the only "one-person's subjective interpretation" that I found about it - hardly scientific. Can you add to the detail with scientific citations?

[QUOTE=may_wentee]
After studying geology for over two years none of my professors ever mentioned the word "super volcano." I looked through all thirty-five of my geology books and dictionaries and the word "super volcano" is never mentioned.

The word "super volcano" is a laymans' term, popularized by the media - and it is not a scientific term - and in your case you are using it to refer to the so-called "Mount Toba (super-volcano), Sumatra, Indonesia, 72,000 B.C."
Yes it was a extremely devastating volcano, but the mass media also referred to Mt. St. Helens as a "super volcano."

However, you do bring up an interesting fact though, in terms of biology:

"72,000 BC Massive super volcano eruption of Toba, North Sumatra. Resulting in severe global cooling and massive loss of life. Confirmed by what is termed a genetic bottleneck. A few thousand human survivors. At this time Sapiens Sapiens is thought to have begun the move out of Africa."
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/chronology.html

I have never heard anything else about this so-called "super" catalysmic event and doubt that it contributed to the devastation claimed in the only article that I found about it describing it in superficial detail. This is the only "one-person's subjective interpretation" that I found about it - hardly scientific. Can you add to the detail with scientific citations?

How about three for starters:

www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/supervolcano/programme.shtml

www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/volcano_monitor_010807-1.html

Actually I found over fifty on the internet that refer to 'Supervolcanos'. But that's not even getting started. But I'm getting writers cramp, so I'll just give three for kicks. O.K.? If you don't think the word 'Supervolcano' exists, then just type it in 'Yahoo Search'. You should find plenty that refer to 'Supervolcanos' to keep you busy. If that doesn't convince ya, then start training horses again. Speaking of scientific, You might consider going back and studying Volcanology again. It sounds like you missed a class or two along the way.

May_wentee :D

Can anyone tell me what areas does the Mediterranean volcanic belt cover?

Can anyone tell me what areas does the Mediterranean volcanic belt cover?

Kingwinner visit this site; it might help

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/region.cfm?rnum=01

Xylene, I learned a lot from your post, thank you! :)


By rhyolitic volcano, which specific type of volcano do you mean? (Volcanoes are usually divided into 3 types based on shape and composition: shield, cinder cone, and composite.)

Rhyolitic volcanos have a silica content in the magma of more than 66%.

Given that the magma is high in silica, is it more likely to form a cinder cone volcano or a composite volcano? Or both cinder cone and composite volcano are possible to form(like a 50:50 chance)? Or is one type much more likely to form (e.x. cinder cone volcano) than the other (e.x. composite volcano)?

Specifically dome volcanos, and calderas as the the other extreme.

Is Paricutin in Mexico the most quickly formed known volcano? I have found out that it rose more than 40 meters in 1 day when it was growing the fastest. How slowly can a slow-building volcano rise 40 meters in height, can they take up to millions of years?

cinder-cone and scoria volcanoes can grow very quickly, in a matter of days or weeks they can be to height of a church spire, as the people of Paracutin discovered. As for how slowly a volcano could grow, I don't know--that would depend on the regularity of eruptions, and the spacing between them.

Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt goes all the way from the west Pacific Islands, Asia (including Himalayas which are not volcanoes), and southern Europe. Does the Mediterranean volcanic volcanic belt only include the southern Europe part, or is it essentially interchangeable (the same as) with the Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt?

The volcanos in the Med are specifically due to the impact of Africa and Europe.

"The intrusion of Africa under Europe also creates volcanoes" ==> are these volcanoes in the Alps area, or same other places?

The Italian Alps are fold mountains, but there are volcanic intrusions due to the presence of the underlying African Plate.

[QUOTE=valich]

How about three for starters:

www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/supervolcano/programme.shtml

www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/volcano_monitor_010807-1.html

Actually I found over fifty on the internet that refer to 'Supervolcanos'. But that's not even getting started. But I'm getting writers cramp, so I'll just give three for kicks. O.K.? If you don't think the word 'Supervolcano' exists, then just type it in 'Yahoo Search'. You should find plenty that refer to 'Supervolcanos' to keep you busy. If that doesn't convince ya, then start training horses again. Speaking of scientific, You might consider going back and studying Volcanology again. It sounds like you missed a class or two along the way.

May_wentee :D
Well yes. This is for starters: I hope? But every weblink that you posted refers back to a media news article. Media journalists always need to exaggerate to stay on the payroll. As I said, in scientific terminology there is no such word as a "supervolcano." Perhaps the most destructive volcano that we know of in the history of the Earth is Mount Vesuvius that completed buried Pampeii in AD 89. If anything, this was a "supervolcano."

Your first link was written by a journalist "Robert Roy Britt" who is a
"science writer" on this website forum: no factual evidence provided to support his media-written article.

Your second link link leads to 64 sub-categories that I then have to choose the link "Super Volcano" posted by "Solcumhouse:the Power for the People," the project of "Ozone Hole Inc." For some unknown reason I am unable to get beyond this page?

Your third link is titled "Science and Nature:T.V.& Radio Followup: Supervolcano." Again written by a journalist, who cites no scientific research and uses exciting layman terminology to suggest what could "possibly" happen under Yellowstone National Park. He cites absolutely no scientific evidence.

Do any of your fifty other articles include scientific studies or research that include shown and proven scientific fact with proposed hypotheses? The three articles that you cited are all written by journalist's hype.

Perhaps the most destructive volcano that we know of in the history of the Earth is Mount Vesuvius that completed buried Pampeii in AD 89.

Huh.
Wow.
I can't say anything else but wow.
You think Vesuvius was the most destructive volcano in the history of the earth?
That's just...
Wow.


And. Yes. "Supervolcano" is not a scientific term. But, does it really matter? The fact is that there have been volcanic eruptions that dwarf anything known in man's history. "Supervolcano" is as good a term as any. (Maybe ubervolcano would be better....)


Pause.
Vesuvius...
Wow.
That's just...
Wow.

[QUOTE=may_wentee]
Well yes. This is for starters: I hope? But every weblink that you posted refers back to a media news article. Media journalists always need to exaggerate to stay on the payroll. As I said, in scientific terminology there is no such word as a "supervolcano." Perhaps the most destructive volcano that we know of in the history of the Earth is Mount Vesuvius that completed buried Pampeii in AD 89. If anything, this was a "supervolcano."

Your first link was written by a journalist "Robert Roy Britt" who is a
"science writer" on this website forum: no factual evidence provided to support his media-written article.

Your second link link leads to 64 sub-categories that I then have to choose the link "Super Volcano" posted by "Solcumhouse:the Power for the People," the project of "Ozone Hole Inc." For some unknown reason I am unable to get beyond this page?

Your third link is titled "Science and Nature:T.V.& Radio Followup: Supervolcano." Again written by a journalist, who cites no scientific research and uses exciting layman terminology to suggest what could "possibly" happen under Yellowstone National Park. He cites absolutely no scientific evidence.

Do any of your fifty other articles include scientific studies or research that include shown and proven scientific fact with proposed hypotheses? The three articles that you cited are all written by journalist's hype.

Sounds like you're a reporter from the 'Skeptical Inquirier'. So Yellowstone is not a 'Supervolcano'? Then what is it? A Roman Candle that super erupts every 600,000 years? :eek:

[QUOTE=valich]Sounds like you're a reporter from the 'Skeptical Inquirier'. So Yellowstone is not a 'Supervolcano'? Then what is it? A Roman Candle that super erupts every 600,000 years? :eek:
Perhaps I am. Yellowstone is a flat surface: hardly can be considered as a volcanoe! Hot spots yes. I'd like to learn more about it. Can May_Wen Tee post some of his fifty links that are scientific research journals? I am being sincere here. I do not know but I am interested.

Huh.
Wow.
I can't say anything else but wow.
You think Vesuvius was the most destructive volcano in the history of the earth?
That's just...
Wow.


And. Yes. "Supervolcano" is not a scientific term. But, does it really matter? The fact is that there have been volcanic eruptions that dwarf anything known in man's history. "Supervolcano" is as good a term as any. (Maybe ubervolcano would be better....)


Pause.
Vesuvius...
Wow.
That's just...
Wow.

Taupo, I think--800km3 of ash erupted from Taupo in about 26500 BC--and that's not the biggest eruption ever in New Zealand. Over 1000km3 was vented from another volcano in the Central North Island just over 1 million years ago. The largest eruption from Taupo in recent times was 110km3 erupted in 232 AD. We're due for another sometime in the next 30-40 years.

The largest volcanic eruptions on Earth occured during its pre-historic formation 4.6 billion years ago covering millions of square kilometres. Individual volcanic eruptions are known, through isotope dating in volcanic rock, to cover over 2,000 square kilometers.

The largest volcanic eruption ever seen by man was the Surt volcano eruption on Jupiter's moon Io in 2001, covering 1,900 square kilometers.

The largest series of volcanic eruptions in Earth's "history" were the Siberian Traps covering 2 million square kilometers and pouring out 3-4 million cubic kilometers of lava 275 million years ago at the end of the Permian period, and are thought to have caused the mass extinction of 96% of the world's animal species. The volcanic ash, sulphur, C02, and methane that engulfed the earth's atmosphere, blocked out so much sunlight (causing temperatures to plummet) that it triggered a massive glaciation and the biggest drop in sea level in Earth's history. The resulting change in climate lasted millions of years.

The second largest series of volcanic eruptions in Earth's "history" on land were the Deccan Traps 66 million years ago: the volcanic layers are more than two kilometers thick.

The largest volcanic eruption ever known during human history was Mount Toba on Sumatra, Indonesia. It errupted 75,000 years ago, triggering the Earth's last major glaciation periods and creating a "bottle neck" for advancing human civilization.

The Earth's most recent largest and destructive volcanic eruption was Lake Taupo 26,500 years ago in the Taupo Volcanic Zone, producing 800 cubic kilometers of lava. Its 200 AD erruption may have created a global tsunami.

The most destructive erruption in modern times was the Tambora eruption in Indonesia in 1815, killing 90,000 people.

Yellowstone’s last eruption was 640,000 years ago, covering 340 square kilometers. But in terms of the amount of lava, its largest eruption occurred 2.1 million years ago and produced over a 1,000 cubic kilometers. It is the largest volcanic system in North America.

The largest and tallest volcano on Earth today is Mauna Loa.

Defining the largest eruptions:
Qualitative terms suggesting the enormity of volcanic events abound in the literature, but are only rarely defined in terms of a quantitative measure of size. "Cataclysmic," "paroxysmal," or "colossal" are terms used to describe events larger than about 0.1 km3 of tephra. On a larger scale, events ejecting 300 km3 of magma have been termed "mega" eruptions, "gigantic" eruptions, and "great" eruptions. In recent years, the additional qualitative, but highly evocative, terms "supereruption" and "supervolcano" have caught the popular imagination; and these terms are now beginning to creep into the published literature.

The most widely used index of volcanic size is the volcanic explosivity index (VEI).The VEI is a semi-quantitative logarithmic scale of eruption size, based on a combination of erupted tephra volume and eruption plume height. On this scale, the largest events (VEI 8) are defined as eruptions with bulk tephra volumes >1,000 km3. For eruptions of this scale, much of the erupted tephra is in the form of ignimbrites, with a lesser component of ash fallout. The last two VEI 8 eruptions occurred ~74,000 BP with the eruption of the Younger Toba Tuff from Toba, Sumatra , and at 26,500 BP, with the Oruanui eruption, New Zealand. Since there are no historical records of eruptions within even a factor of thirty of a Toba-sized event, and since estimates of the scale of eruptive plumes are model-dependent and difficult to constrain with any certainty for ignimbrite-forming events, the VEI scale for the largest events is based only on erupted volume.

from: "The size and frequency of the largest explosive eruptions on Earth
Ben G Mason, David M Pyle and Clive Oppenheimer, "Bulletin of Volcanology," vol.66, 8, Dec., pp.735 - 748, 2004.

For a compilation of the largest explosive volcanic eruptions based on volume, mass and magnitude estimates (Caldera diameter (km), Deposit bulk volume (km3), Deposit density (kg m–3), Mass (kg), and magnitude see the chart in the above article.

I.e. I, Valich, was wrong and stupid in saying that Vesuvius was the most destructive volcanic eruption in Earth's history. I have, since that stupid utterance, spent much time googling and here is the results of my web searching. I won't admit that I was stupid. I will merely state a bunch of dry facts and pretend that it never happened. I will never again mention Vesuvius as the most destructive volcano. And now such terms as Taupo, Yellowstone Caldera, Siberian Traps, etc... are now a permanent fixture of my vocabulary. Thank you all for correcting me.

Muaha!

3. The one and only definition I found in google about "Mediterranean belt" is a major concentration of earthquakes and composite volcanoes that runs through the Mediterranean Sea, crosses the Mideast and the Himalaya, and passes through the East Indies. This seems to be not only covering the Mediterranean area but the same as the Eurasian-Melanesian belt???!!!
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Mediterranean+belt&meta=

3. The one and only definition I found in google about "Mediterranean belt" is a major concentration of earthquakes and composite volcanoes that runs through the Mediterranean Sea, crosses the Mideast and the Himalaya, and passes through the East Indies. This seems to be not only covering the Mediterranean area but the same as the Eurasian-Melanesian belt???!!!
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Mediterranean+belt&meta=The word "Mediterranean Belt" is nowadays used in popular literature to refer to the whole area above the Mediterranean Sea: it is now somewhat misleading. Please refer to what I posted above:

"The Mediterranean Belt is part of the Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt system. I sometimes heard it called the "Alpino-Mediterranean belt." Basically, you have to look at the wording of the geological terms and define the individual terms accordingly. For example: "Eura" means European, "Asian" means Asia, therefore Euarasian means "consisting of both Europe & Asia." "Melanesia" includes all the areas northeast of Australia till you get into the Asian continent. Get it?

So the entire Eurasian-Melanesian mountain belt includes this entire area, including the Mediterranean region where there is a plate boundary. But the word "Mediterranean Belt" is sometimes confusing because it refers to the entire Mediterranean basin area, the flat forested regions, and also the very ancient historical mountains that were created when Pangea was still seperating."

3. The one and only definition I found in google about "Mediterranean belt" is a major concentration of earthquakes and composite volcanoes that runs through the Mediterranean Sea, crosses the Mideast and the Himalaya, and passes through the East Indies. This seems to be not only covering the Mediterranean area but the same as the Eurasian-Melanesian belt???!!!
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Mediterranean+belt&meta=

Kingwinner, this extremely long impact zone is the legacy of the closing of the Tethys Sea.

Absolutely correct, though Vallich tried to deny this on this, or another thread. At least the weasel is consistent.

Ophiolite: You're wasting our time with your irrelevant posts. GET A LIFE!

Zylene is 100% correct and I never denied this. What I said was that "the word "Mediterranean Belt" is sometimes confusingly used [nowadays in popular literature] because it refers to the entire Mediterranean basin area, the flat forested regions, and also the very ancient historical mountains that were created when Pangea was still seperating": the Alpide-Himalayas that began to form with the closing of the Tethys Sea.

Ophiolite: You're wasting our time with your irrelevant posts. GET A LIFE!
If I can cause one casual reader to recognise what an ignorant person you are I shall not be wasting my time. The irrelevance of posts has been brought to the level of an art form by yourself. As previously pointed out to you (no attention span laddie?) I have a life: quite a satisfactory one, thank you. The only blight on the horizon is a single blithering idiot with a propensity to misunderstand, misinterpret, obfuscate and obscure.

Again, as usual, you are wasting our time with senseless posts. In what way does your post have anything to do with volcanoes??? You are interefering with those of us who are trying to learn on these "scientific" forums. Stop stalking me and GET A LIFE!

Scientists believe Nyiragongo Volcano, Congo will erupt again covering the town of Goma. "500,000 people live in Goma, and the population will probably double in five years....Only Italy's Mount Vesuvius is more dangerous in its threat to humans than Nyiragongo, which has erupted five times since 1902."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/07/volcano.shadow.ap/index.html

Stop posting random, irrelevant, easily googled links, whose only commononality is inclusion of one or more words from the thread title. It does not make you look erudite, merely foolish.

You seem fixated with the word "google." Sounds like a baby in a crib: ""google, google, google."

Everyday - time permitting I read or watch CNN, AND what's your problem with a person using an online search engine like Google anyways? It's called "education."

My post is highly relevant: your's is distracting, obtrusive, dumb, belligerent, rude, and worthless. My post contributes to one of the questions asked above about so-called "supervolcanoes" or which are the most dangerous and explosively erupting.

"Only Vesuvius is more dangerous in its threat to humans than Nyiragongo."

I am unable to reply to the above post as this would be construed by the entity known as Vallich as stalking. He has threatened me with legal action if I continue such activity, so I guess I shall just have to leave it to the rest of you to recognise just what a tosser he is. Shouldn't be too difficult for you all. Good luck.

Valich,

Heh.
You know. As soon as I read the word 'Vesuvius' I knew that you were trying to prove that Vesuvius was the most destructive volcano in the history of the Earth.

That is what you said, you know. The most destructive volcano in the history of the Earth.

Perhaps the most destructive volcano that we know of in the history of the Earth is Mount Vesuvius that completed buried Pampeii in AD 89.

So. The fact that Vesuvius caused a large number of human deaths because of the city on its slopes (said cities which once more nestle up cozily with the beast, by the way. I wonder if they'll leave us with the lovely ash statues as well? That would be sweet.) has nothing to do with your original statement.

Vesuvius is barely a pimple compared to so many volcanoes that have erupted in the past.

Hell, if you want to look at destruction in terms of human life, what about the volcano that took out Minoa? I'm not entirely sure about numbers of people living on Minoa at the time, but I can say that the destruction of the Minoan culture surely set the development of civilization for awhile. (It also provided inspiration for myths, of course. Atlantis.)

Anyway.
I guess I better not call you on your bullshit anymore. Or you might sue.
Ha!
Idiot.

No, that is not what "I" said. As you yourself can see, and have requoted as such, that statement is in quotation marks and I cited the source. That is what the reporter wrote.

I have already posted that the most intensively explosive volcanoes occurred during the formation of the Earth - on Earth that is. In terms of destruction, that would probably refer to loss of life as you also seem to agree? I also do not know if Vesuvius was or was not more destructive than the one that took out Minoa. I have tried to research more on Vesuvius but ran out of time and came up with no fatality figures. Don't know.

See. This is your problem, Valich.
You clearly made that statement. It was not a quote. It was not what someone else said. It was what you said.
And now're trying to pass the buck.

Here's the quote again with more context:
Media journalists always need to exaggerate to stay on the payroll. As I said, in scientific terminology there is no such word as a "supervolcano." Perhaps the most destructive volcano that we know of in the history of the Earth is Mount Vesuvius that completed buried Pampeii in AD 89. If anything, this was a "supervolcano."
First you talk about how journalists exagerrate. This implies that you don't. And that what is coming next is not exagerration.
What comes next is you saying that 'as you've said' there is no scientific term 'supervolcano'. Which is true. There isn't. But that doesn't mean that supervolcano isn't apt for certain of the volcanic eruptions under discussion. (Not Vesuvius, though. Not even the volcano that destroyed Minoa would be termed a 'supervolcano'. Pimples. The both of them.)

You then go on to say that Vesuvius is perhaps the most destructive volcano in the history of the Earth.

This is not a quote. This is your own words.

You, Valich, don't even know what you say. How can you defend yourself when you don't even know what you've said or haven't said? What you've quoted from other sources and what you haven't? This is similar to Billy T quoting from some of your own links and you having no recollection of those links. Not only that, but you never understood, despite multiple attempts to explain it to you, that those were your links.

I have already posted that the most intensively explosive volcanoes occurred during the formation of the Earth - on Earth that is.

So. You're inconsistent. At least you're consistent in your inconsistency.

In terms of destruction, that would probably refer to loss of life as you also seem to agree?

No. I don't agree. Destruction is destruction. I think that the Yellowstone Caldera was a million times (not accurate) more destructive than Vesuvius. And there was not a loss of a single human life. However, there was a lot of animal life lost. A lot. A whole lot.

You're squirming, Valich. But you can't squirm away from this. You said destructive. (Yes. You said it. Not some journalist or whatever.) You didn't say destructive in terms of human life and/or property.

I also do not know if Vesuvius was or was not more destructive than the one that took out Minoa. I have tried to research more on Vesuvius but ran out of time and came up with no fatality figures. Don't know.

Well. At least you finally admit to not knowing. Doesn't stop you from trying to squirm out of the implications of your statement anyway, does it?

Here's a hint as to the 'destructiveness' of the Minoan volcano. It destroyed the island leaving only fragmentary remains. Minoa was one of the seats of earliest civilization. Some of the oldest structures found are Minoan. Their whole island went boom. Vesuvius merely dumped a bunch of ash on a few cities.

I have no idea as to fatality figures. Nor do I care. It's easy to judge the difference between the two eruptions without it.

Rome barely blinked when Vesuvius blew. Minoa vanished.

Im reallly starting to get pissed off. Read this very carefully. I dont care who started what. Its your words against everyone else (this goes for EVERYONE). The fact remains quite simply and strongly: stop this bullshit bickering real quick. You can argue, thats fine. Use expletives or doragotory comments and the shit is going to hit the fan real quick.

This is the FIRST and LAST warning. The Next step is closing threads. And the next is temp bans.

Tristan: I agree with you 100%. Invert is requoting statements I made way back tagging them on as quotes to what I just said. Look at what I said in my last post, " I also do not know if Vesuvius was or was not more destructive than the one that took out Minoa. I have tried to research more on Vesuvius but ran out of time and came up with no fatality figures. Don't know."

If I can in any way stop this bullshit bickering then please advise. I did not use any type of insulting, vulgar, or condemning words in reply to Invert. I said, this is what was reported: I tried to research it but don't know, and he said the same?

I don't understand why I was given such and argumentative responce post. Please tell me how I should reply to avoid these?

The problem, Tristan, is that you can't debate with Valich. It's been tried. And it's impossible.
It's not that he 'wins' any debate. He simply refuses to debate. He denies saying things that he clearly said. He repeats himself endlessly without responding to rebuttals of the former times he said the exact same thing. He googles up quotes that aren't relevant and which he doesn't even seem to understand.

I understand your point, and I'll back off. But I have little doubt that he'll say something so dumb and outrageous again that I won't be able to help myself.

You're a mod. How easy is it to find out if he's a sock puppet? I suspect him of stirring all this up purposefully. (I am not, however, denying my own responsibility in becoming enmired, especially as I suspect him of doing it on purpose to begin with.)


Anyway.
You said 'bullshit'. That's an expletive.
Naughty boy.
Valich is going to accuse you of being vulgar and unscientific, you know.
Muaha!!

HA!
Jesus Christ.
Look at this, Tristan. Do you see what we've been trying to deal with?

Invert is requoting statements I made way back tagging them on as quotes to what I just said.

Oh my god!! I'm guilty of the great crime of quoting things Valich has said... Oh. What a sin. How horrible. How disgusting!

See? I've gone to great lengths to explain his mistake and this is his response.
Amazing.

I don't understand why I was given such and argumentative responce post.

You've been given such argumentative responses because you repeatedly refuse to ever admit your mistakes. You even seem to think that you shouldn't be called to task for calling Vesuvius the most destructive volcano in the history of the Earth.

Yes. You've finally said you don't know. But at the same time you're trying to squirm away by saying that it's destructive in terms of human life. Meanwhile, you're completely ignoring the point of the whole damn thing.

You also fail to respond to the fact that you've lied (or simply don't remember) what you yourself have posted. You seem to think that you can say anything you want and everybody should be just fine with that.


Tristan,

If you cared to go back and do some research into the 'history' of the interaction with Valich, you'd see that it started quite amicably (although my first posts to him were somewhat aggressive in that I asked him to stop ressurecting threads (three pages worth in one sitting.) Ophiolite was his defender at that time. We then all sat around and tried to talk about things but quickly discovered that it was impossible.

Impossible.

And yet. We continue to try.
Why?
Because... that's a good question.
The man is excellent at what he does.
I stand firm in my belief that he does it on purpose. And, again, that doesn't remove any of the responsibility from my own shoulders.

However, I think that there is a responsibility to protect (as Ophiolite calls them) 'casual readers' from Valich's posts. The things he says are... not good.

Anyway.
Your forum. Your law.
I'll acquiesce. For now.
But, do me a favor. Keep on eye on Valich and make up your own mind. I have no doubt as to your final decision.
None.
I'm that confident.

Hell.
Come to look at exactly what has been posted in this thread, I fail to see where your problem is, Tristan.

There are other threads where I have been quite aggressive (mostly out of frustration) and even Ophiolite has been aggressive.

I don't see what you object to in this thread though.
I'm calling Valich on his bullshit, yes. But, not very aggressively.

Could you quote exactly what you have problems with in this thread?

I just told you in a very short post that "I don't know how many fatalities Vesuvius or the Minoan volcano caused." I admitted my to you my own ignorance. I didn't say anything insulting or implied in any way that I knew more than anyone else. My ignorance about this suggests a possible further inquiry or a polite intellectual debate which is what these forums are all about.

Valich,

I know.
I've already said that you finally admitted to not knowing.
But, that doesn't change the fact that even while claiming ignorance, you continued to try to defend the Vesuvius being the most destructive volcano in the history of the Earth statement you made.

Or are you?
Did you completely forget that you posted that?
It wasn't that long ago.
If you forgot all about that, then why did you bring in that quote on Vesuvius? I assumed that you were trying to back up your earlier statement on Vesuvius. This was the only context which I could make sense of it. The only context by which it had some form of relevance to this thread.

Either you were trying to back up your earlier statement or you were simply introducing tangential and irrelevant quotes to the discussion.

Which is it?


Also. Why is it that you object to me calling you on your own words? You made a statement. Just because you forgot you said it doesn't mean that everyone should forget you said it.


Also. As my previous post to Tristan states. I don't believe that I insulted you. I did call you on your bullshit. I also made it plain that I don't appreciate your evasions when called on your bullshit. Other than that, I think I was pretty nice.

The only 'insult' I can see in this thread is Ophiolite calling you a weasel. I see that as the same thing as me talking about you squirming. Hardly insulting. Merely factual. Tristan doesn't understand as he hasn't been present during the evolution of our relationship.

I guarantee you, Valich, if he sticks around and observes your posts... he'll understand. That won't necessarily mean that he'll let us go around flaming you as we sometimes have (by your own provocation) but I bet he'll think about it...

I want to publicly agree with invert's comments in his recent posts, in relation to Vallich. I am unable to comment on Vallich's responses, as I currently have him on ignore (The remote destruct button does not appear to be working, so ignore is the next best option.) I would quiblle with one small point.
The only 'insult' I can see in this thread is Ophiolite calling you a weasel. I see that as the same thing as me talking about you squirming. Hardly insulting. Merely factual. .No. I really did intend it as an insult. I don't see why Vallich should be allowed to go around insulting the scientific method and the integrity of this forum with his blatant lies, and not receive insults back.
So, my apologies if it was not clear that in calling him a weasel I intended to offend. (I rather think most of the offense would be taken by actual weasels.) Perhaps the use of an adjective, such as snivelling, would have made the insult clearer. I'll remember that should the occasion arise in future -which if I can manage to keep him on ignore should never be the case.

Tristan, you said you didn't care who started this. I think you should. Vallich is the most pernicious influence on this board. BaronMax, for example, may be a racist bigot, but he's an honest racist bigot. You can communicate with him. Vallich is in a different universe.
Most of the rubbish on this board (and we know there is a lot of that) is readily identifiable as rubbish. That allows the quality posts to stand out an be readily identified. Vallich's material, however, gives the impression of erudition and scholarly research and so may mislead the unsuspecting 'casual reader'. I thought at first he was an enthusiastic seventeen year old, who didn't quite grasp things too well. I now believe him to be chronologically (though not mentally), much older.
You know what I think should happen to him, but you guys are in charge. Your choice.

This thread is called "Volcano Experts."

My post contributes to this thread by asking ""I don't know how many fatalities Vesuvius or the Minoan volcano caused." This would be a good topic for discussion on this thread.

Can't you see how your "Ophiolite" and "invert_nexus"'s posting have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter? Reread both of your long postings. What do they have to do with what we are trying to intellectually discuss? Again, everytime I post anything, you simply reply with an irrelevant accusation, insult, belittlement, condescending comment that contributes nothing to an intellectual forum. Why are you doing this???

Guys, just call a truce, and get it over with. This is ridicoulous. Nothing is going to be done because rules arent being broken. All thats happening is bickering like 12 year olds out at recess.

Valich: go look up the word Humility at dictionary.com. And practice a little of it.

Did I say anything in my above posts that would not contribute to a peaceful intellectual "humble" discussion: "Vesuvious vs. Minioa."? I honestly don't know what you mean by suggesting that I am not being humble. I asked you before, please advice me as to how I can ovoid the cursing vulgarity directed t me, the constant belittlemen and condensation, and the immediate condemning replies to whatever I post? How am I not being humble? I am not angry. I am not using vulgarity. I posted a humble possible discussion point. What do you mean???

So I look up the word "humble": "not proud or haughty, arrogant, or assertive...reflecting submission or...ranking low in a hierarchial or scale." What have I ever vehemently denied without asking for a further explanation or proof - for my own education. I've even repeated three times on these forums that 'I am stupid" and dumb: but I am smart enough to realize that I know there is a lot to learn and a lot that I do not know. I remain humble.