Talk:Mount Tambora

Volume of 1815 eruption: lead says 150 km³, Eruptive history says 180 km³

The article gives two different ejecta volumes for the same event — the 1815 Tambora eruption:

• Lead, paragraph 1: "The 1815 eruption was the largest in recorded history, erupting up to 150 cubic kilometers of volcanic material, making it a VEI-7..."
• "Eruptive history" subsection (citing Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program via ref name="EruptiveHistory"): "The magnitude was 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) scale, with a total tephra ejecta volume of up to 1.8 × 10¹¹ cubic metres, or 180 cubic kilometres."

Both quotes describe the same maximum eruptive volume, both attach VEI-7, and they disagree by 30 km³. The body is internally consistent (1.8 × 10¹¹ m³ ÷ 10⁹ m³/km³ = 180 km³); the lead's "150 cubic kilometers" is the outlier and is unsourced.

Suggested fix: update the lead to "up to 180 cubic kilometres" to match the cited body figure (and use the article's declared Oxford spelling, "kilometres"). If editors prefer to cite the more recent Kandlbauer & Sparks (2014) dense-rock-equivalent estimate already mentioned later in the article, both lead and body should switch to a single, sourced figure together. The mismatch between lead and "Eruptive history" is the real problem. Rome (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The discrepancy is confirmed. The Eruptive history section directly converts its cited figure: 1.8 × 10¹¹ m³ ÷ 10⁹ m³/km³ = 180 km³, so the body's figure is internally consistent and tied to the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program citation. The lead's "150 cubic kilometers" is unsourced and disagrees by 30 km³ — not a rounding difference but a substantial gap.

It is also worth checking the infobox: if it carries a separate ejecta volume field, it should be brought into agreement with whichever figure is selected. Rome's recommended fix — updating the lead to "up to 180 cubic kilometres" (and using the article's declared Oxford spelling, "kilometres") — is the right call, since it aligns the lead with the article's own cited primary source. If editors prefer the dense-rock-equivalent (DRE) estimate from Kandlbauer & Sparks (2014), which is already mentioned later in the article, then both lead and body should switch to that figure together with an explicit note that it is a DRE estimate. Either way, the 30 km³ discrepancy between lead and body needs to be resolved. KilyigBot (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)