User talk:Aleral Wei

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

Hello, Aleral Wei! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Your recent edits

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

[edit]

I would like to thank you for adding to the articles related to volcanology. Do you have a contact? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it! How would you like me to reach you? This user account is actually not mine Aleral Wei (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, fellow volcanologist

[edit]

...or maybe not (I am not a volcanologist, either), but I am glad that someone other than me is working on these climate topics (I've also done Mount Churchill) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus editing volcanoes, paleoclimate, planetary sciences, and some other minor things...I'm new here, but is it just me or everybody gets no notification when someone replied on some talk page? I didn't get any notification when you replied on Aniakchak talk page Aleral Wei (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, people don't get notifications automatically. Instead, we use Special:Watchlist to keep track of a given page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again!

[edit]

I noticed your edits of the Parana-Etendaka traps! Thank you so much, you really added more details, and elaborated on them! I always found the traps interesting, especially since it was potentially the site of so many large ignimbrite eruptions! Again, thanks so much! The Space Enthusiast (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate this! These units are always fascinating but little effort has been put out to explain the assumptions and process behind the extremely large volumes outside academics, so I thought to write one real quick. Aleral Wei (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

[edit]
Hello, Aleral Wei. You have new messages at Jo-Jo Eumerus's talk page.
Message added 10:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

In case there have been new findings on the TRAPPIST-1 planet atmospheres. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus The first phase-curve results for the TRAPPIST-1 planets are out!([1]) Unfortunately, the verdict for an atmosphere on TRAPPIST-1 b is negative, and I’m pretty sure that’s a done deal (phase-curve observations are just too powerful a technique). On the other hand, the good news is that knowing a planet has no atmosphere actually improves the detectability of atmospheres on the farther-out planets (within the habitable zone!), because we now have an airless planet whose transmission spectrum should reflect only stellar contamination (flares, starspots). With that in hand, the stellar variability can then be corrected out, letting us isolate the truly weaker atmospheric signals of the more distant planets (see this: [2] and [3]). Aleral Wei (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: Do estimates of space weathering factor in the amount of XUV and stellar wind required to make a planet airless in the first place? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Space weathering is a variable in a surface mineralogy model rather than in an atmospheric model. There is a threshold at which the effects of space weathering saturate. After that point, additional UV and stellar wind no longer darken a planet’s rocks, so you can test a finite set of scenarios, from no weathering (lightest rocks) to a theoretical maximum (darkest rocks), to see how well the data fit, regardless of the level of UV or wind to which the planet is exposed. Aleral Wei (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the hypothesis I was thinking about is that volcanic activity is offsetting the space weathering and thus preventing the albedo from dropping too much. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 14:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1831 mystery eruption

[edit]

What do you think of this claim? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim really is backed by the strongest possible geologic evidence. Local 14C samples show eruption in 19th century; Local Russia colonial artifacts shows eruption in 19th century. Distal ash layer with indistinguishable geochemical fingerprints in ice core dates to 1831 (co-occur with sulfate aerosols), and ice core chronology is anchored to historical events which means nearly no age uncertainty. The proof couldn't be stronger. Aleral Wei (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, for some reason I was conflating it with 1808 mystery eruption. BTW, I wouldn't say that Putana (volcano) is a good candidate for that one - while that volcano is remote and in a region where even large eruptions can leave only tiny craters (e.g Huaynaputina, Lascar in 1993 and Soncor), an eruption large enough to cause climate change would probably be noticeable from Calama and San Pedro de Atacama. Anyhow, back on Zavaritskii, not a lot of sources on that volcano. Perhaps there are offline Russian sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, ice core from that year contains many distinct tephra populations, Eclipse glass, Siple Dome glass, South Pole-Dome C glass [4][5]. No one knows what volcanoes erupted all these shards. Eclipse glass could come from anywhere in North America from Alaska to Mexico, and Siple Dome is just local Antartica volcanism. A climate altering eruption definitely happened in 1809 but my opinion is that the magnitude of the sulfate signal might be spuriously amplified by small, local volcanism that sit very close to ice cores. On Zavaritskii, some Japanses abstracts describe very large eruption from it ca. 8.0 ka, comparable with Kurile KO. The layer is called Zavaritskii-Shumshu tephra. Aleral Wei (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The extreme Youngest Toba Tuff volume estimates from Self et al. 2019

[edit]

I cannot describe how insane the volume estimates are for the YTT eruption, if its ignimbrites reached Malaysia, as suggested by https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AGUFM.V51H0141S/abstract. Now, I do know some smaller volume estimates have been made (notably, the 5,600 km^3 estimate from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027323001361?via%3Dihub), but this 2019 estimate is still quite dizzying. The abstract seems to only include the Sumatran extent of the YTT, and its corresponding Malaysian extent, but not if the ignimbrite extended a similar distance, deep into the Indian Ocean. The volumes also seem to be in DRE, instead of bulk (The volumes in the first part of the abstract look like they are from Costa et al, which estimates the fall volume to be 3,800 km^3.) It's unfortunate that we only have the abstract, and not the paper itself. I might have to email S.Self, then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Space Enthusiast (talk • contribs)

Yeah, those numbers are huge. The 3,800 km³ DRE fallout estimate is definitely from @Ant.costa74 (tagging the real author here), and it's higher than even the upper end of most fallout estimates (800–2,000 km³ DRE)[6][7][8]. I think a few distinctions should be made. Costa et al. used an ash dispersion model to fit observed ash distribution, while other studies directly derived ash distribution from field observations. For ancient eruptions, FALL3D appears to consistently produce much higher estimates than those derived purely from observational data. Obviously it's not for me to judge which approach is more valid. To arrive at the 6,000 km³ DRE ignimbrite volume, S. Self also didn't base the estimate on mapped ignimbrite distribution, but instead used the crystal/glass enrichment factor from Rose & Chesner (1987). The reasoning goes something like: "This ignimbrite contains a higher crystal/glass ratio compared to that of original magma, so its total mass must be depleted by ~37% in the form of fallout glass. Therefore, 3,800 ÷ 0.37 = ~10,000 km³ DRE total erupted volume." Oversimplified perhaps, but again, it's not my place to judge the accuracy. My point is, if S. Self had chosen a different fallout volume—say, 1,500 km³—he would’ve ended up with 1,500 ÷ 0.37 ≈ 4,000 km³ DRE instead. Aleral Wei (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Honestly, I wonder how large the YTT ignimbrite truly was. It's also interesting that FALL3D overestimates the volume compared to observational data. Anyways, with all these more recent estimates, it seems safe to say that the YTT was above 2,800 cubic kilometers in terms of volume. I find it fascinating that the YTT could have approached the volume of the Wah Wah Springs Tuff, and Fish Canyon Tuff. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how well these estimates square with the caldera volume and plausible pre-caldera topography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How deep the Toba caldera floor subsided is a huge unknown, mostly due to unknown thickness of YTT tuff ponded within. Another one is the geometry of caldera floor (piston vs trapdoor). To be fair, we don't know the thickness of intra-caldera tuff for many large calderas (e.g. every caldera along Yellowstone hotspot track) Aleral Wei (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yellowstone Caldera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humboldt, California. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]