2118 eruption revisited

[bodysurfer]

hey there folks hope all is well, haven't checked in w pw expect for an occasional lurk in quite awhile, but came across this posting just now and thought of yawl

https://news.miami.edu/rsmas/stories/202...finds.html

Kind of interesting ,wonder if its true.

fair winds

fair winds, jlm

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bodysurfer

but came across this posting just now and thought of yawl

https://news.miami.edu/rsmas/stories/202...finds.html

Kind of interesting ,wonder if its true.

---

Not at all true. Volcano Watch will have a response tomorrow and will be submitting a more formal response in Nature at some point in the future. The professional code-jockeys (modelers)sometimes mistake random computational results for reality - even when those results border on the ridiculous.

[Obie]

"Increasing magma pressure most likely culprit in triggering the 2018 Kilauea eruption"

The article pretty much refutes everything in that study and they did it without an LOL at the end.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories...watch.html

[bodysurfer]

nother good sounding theory down the tubes. I was wondering/ concerned if true, that fewer tourist toilets being flushed would result in rising groundwater pressure in mauna loa’s bowels .

fair winds, jlm

[Rob Tucker]

Not at all true. Volcano Watch will have a response tomorrow and will be submitting a more formal response in Nature at some point in the future. The professional code-jockeys (modelers)sometimes mistake random computational results for reality - even when those results border on the ridiculous.
[/quote]

[TomK]

I'm still shocked Nature accepted the article for publication and then gave it the headline:

"Extreme rainfall triggered the 2018 rift eruption at K#299;lauea Volcano"

I'm not a fan of for-profit science journals - they add ridiculous costs to researchers even though those researchers are providing the journals with their content. Many fields are now turning to free online peer-reviewed journals although I think it will be a long time before that becomes the accepted norm.

I don't know if this is something that has affected Nature's process in publishing articles, it's long been the journal where scientists want to publish their work, especially if the results are very significant. But I don't think this particular paper was ever "Nature" material and don't understand why it was published with that title.

[bodysurfer]

agree tom, I was 99% sure it was correct for this eruption anyway, simply because it was pub in nature. Its def becoming a whole new world in evaluating and trusting information. Thought that volcano watch art did a pretty good job of taking the high ground for the rebuttal.

fair winds, jlm