Volcanoes, Earthquakes And The 3,600 Year Comet Cycle

[Altair]

Greatarticleagain, Pierre!

I found a small error in an image description.


It should be "...into Arabic numbers".

[Pierre]

It should be "...into Arabic numbers".

You're right, I just corrected the article.

[MK Scarlett]

As I'm translating this again great article in French, I noticed a misspelling there: In the first of the two paragraphs above the picture described with "Depiction of the Great Comet of 1811, also known as Napoleon's Comet", it is written:

So is a 3,600 year stable orbit really impossible? Keep in mind that the closest star to us isPromixa Centauri, about 4.25 light years away,

It should be "Proxima Centauri".

[MK Scarlett]

Below the subtitle "的3600 BP (1600 BC) Event", there is this quote (fromBooksGoogle):

A cataclysmic eruption of Thera (Santorini) was dated to 1628BCfrom carbon dating of ash, and from tree rings as far away as Irish bogs, and Californian bristlecone pines.的的ra explosion, maybe fifty times larger than Krakatoa [...]

And then, in the second following paragraph, there is this in the first sentence:

的eruption of Thera is estimated to have beenfive times larger than the Krakatoaeruption.

Between the two quotes above, the eruption of Thera goes from fifty times larger to five times larger than Krakatoa.
Either I misunderstood the meaning, or the huge difference between 5 and 50 is a mistake...

@Pierre, could you help me to figure out this?

[MK Scarlett]

追求法语翻译,以后我的ve noticed so far.

1- After the picture depicting the remains of Thera caldera:

Dendochronolgy(based both on Irish oaks and Swedish pines) confirms that the eruption of Aniakchak occurred in the first half ofthe 17th century.In addition, it provides more reliable datings than ice cores, which make this eruption virtually concomitant with Thera's:

的first bolded word should be spelled:Dendrochronology. The second bolded part should be spelled:the 17th century B.C.

2- Further, and about Avellino eruption:

的Avelinoeruption 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-documentedAD 79 eruptionthat wiped out Pompeii.

的bolded word should be spelled:Avellino.

[MK Scarlett]

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":

"Notice also that those four volcanoes are located in the Northern Hemisphere. The southernmost one being Thera at 36°Nlongitude, while Saint Helens and Aniakchak are above 45°N. "

As的rais located at 36°N latitude and 25°E longitude,Saint Helensat 53°N latitude and 2°W longitude, andAniakchakat 56°N latitude and 158°W longitude, I think you are referring to latitude and not to longitude. Is that correct?

[Altair]

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的rais located at 36°N latitude and 25°E longitude,Saint Helensat 53°N latitude and 2°W longitude, andAniakchakat 56°N latitude and 158°W longitude, I think you are referring to latitude and not to longitude. Is that correct?

I noticed it, too. It should be "latitude".

[Pierre]

Either I misunderstood the meaning, or the huge difference between 5 and 50 is a mistake...

You understood correctly. It was a mistake, that I've corrected in the original article.

的first bolded word should be spelled:Dendrochronology. The second bolded part should be spelled:the 17th century B.C.

Corrected

的bolded word should be spelled:Avellino.

Corrected

As的rais located at 36°N latitude and 25°E longitude,Saint Helensat 53°N latitude and 2°W longitude, andAniakchakat 56°N latitude and 158°W longitude, I think you are referring to latitude and not to longitude. Is that correct?

You're right. I permuted "longitude" and "latitude". It's corrected now.

Thanks for finding those mistakes.

[MK Scarlett]

Thank you Pierre for your answers.

I now have translated until "Oppenheimer et al,Ice core and palaeoclimatic evidence for the timing and nature of the great mid-13th century volcanic eruption, 2003" quote, and hereafter others little things I'm wondering about:

Just in case and for the possible readers' curiosity, the source of the quoted Bamboo Annals ends on nothing, because URL shows this:
_

https://www.sott.net/article/[%5E81275]:JamesLegge,title(TheChineseClassics):Vol.III,PartI(London:Tr%C3%BCbner&Co,1865),125

._ht tp://books.google.com/books?id=ZkxkAAAAMAAJ&oe=UTF-8NoticehowVogelmentionsacoincidenceofnumberoferuptions.

的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).

****

In the following paragraph (under the "Vostok temperature reconstruction" about的10,800 BP (8,800 BC) Event):

的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 temperatureincreasewas so limited and localized.

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碳年代测定法的喷发(analysis of lava layers)is approximateand 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 "的7200 BP (5200 BC) Events" title has a final "s", as all the others have not?

[Pierre]

Just in case and for the possible readers' curiosity, the source of the quoted Bamboo Annals ends on nothing, because URL shows this:
_
https://www.sott.net/article/[%5E81275]:JamesLegge,title(TheChineseClassics):Vol.III,PartI(London:Tr%C3%BCbner&Co,1865),125
._ht tp://books.google.com/books?id=ZkxkAAAAMAAJ&oe=UTF-8NoticehowVogelmentionsacoincidenceofnumberoferuptions.


的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 updated the link with this one that seems to work:的Chinese Classics

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?

You're not wrong. It should read "drop". I corrected the article.

Two paragraphs under the Oppenheimer quote (mentioned at the beginning), there is this:

I used the term "relatively", because碳年代测定法的喷发(analysis of lava layers)is approximateand 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?

It means that there is a 90% probability that the exact dating falls within the + or - 5% range. I changed the phrasing to avoid the confusion between the uncertainty relative to the dating range VS. the statistical uncertainty that this range is valid.

Another (very little) one I had not noticed so far: is there any reason why the word "Event" in the "的7200 BP (5200 BC) Events" title has a final "s", as all the others have not?

It should be "event". I removed the "s"

[MK Scarlett]

Thank you for your answers and time Pierre.

[Altair]

Possibly another one:

Other combustion aerosols are草酸酯, NH4 and formate.

Combination of acetate and oxalate sounds strange since they are both salts. Missing comma between acetate and oxalate?

Compare:

In four ice-core sequences from Greenland, Antarctica, and Russia, similar anomalous peaks in othercombustion aerosols occur, including nitrate, oxalate, acetate, and formate, reflecting one of the largest biomass-burning episodes in more than 120,000 y.

Source

[Pierre]

Combination of acetate and oxalate sounds strange since they are both salts. Missing comma between acetate and oxalate?

Yes, a coma was missing, it's fixed now.

[MK Scarlett]

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 anyTallvolcano; instead there is aTaalcomplex 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? If it's what was intended at all. Something like I put in italics:

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. Indeedand 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.

I had seen this one and directly corrected it in French translation, but forgot to mention it here. So thanks Altair and Pierre.

[Pierre]

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 anyTallvolcano; instead there is aTaalcomplex 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?

I forgot to put an hyperlink to the Wikipedia "1808 mystery eruption" which is where the three candidates are mentioned. The Tall volcano is spelled this way, it is indeed located in the Philippines. I've added thelinkjust now.

I don't think you have to add explanations since the Wikipedia entry is quite explicit by providing the date of each of the three eruptions.