Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/10356/171051
Title: | Two sources of uncertainty in estimating tephra volumes from isopachs: perspectives and quantification | Authors: | Yang, Qingyuan Jenkins, Susanna F. |
Keywords: | Science::Geology | Issue Date: | 2023 | Source: | Yang, Q. & Jenkins, S. F. (2023). Two sources of uncertainty in estimating tephra volumes from isopachs: perspectives and quantification. Bulletin of Volcanology, 85(8). https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00445-023-01652-1 | Project: | NRF2018NRF-NSFC003ES-010 | Journal: | Bulletin of Volcanology | Abstract: | Calculating the tephra volume is important for estimating eruption intensity and magnitude. Traditionally, tephra volumes are estimated by integrating the area under curves fit to the square root of isopach areas. In this work, we study two sources of uncertainty in estimating tephra volumes based on isopachs. The first is model uncertainty. It occurs because no fitted curves perfectly describe the tephra thinning pattern, and the fitting is done based on log-transformed square root of isopach area. The second source of uncertainty occurs because thickness must be extrapolated beyond the available data, which makes it impossible to validate the extrapolated thickness. We demonstrate the importance of the two sources of uncertainty on a theoretical level. We use six isopach datasets with different characteristics to demonstrate their presence and the effect they could have on volume estimation. Measures to better represent the uncertainty are proposed and tested. For the model uncertainty, we propose (i) a better-informed and stricter way to report and evaluate goodness-of-fit, and (ii) that uncertainty estimations be based on the envelope defined by different well-fitted curves, rather than volumes estimated from individual curves. For the second source of uncertainty, we support reporting separately the volume portions that are interpolated and extrapolated, and we propose to test how sensitive the total volume is to variability in the extrapolated volume. The two sources of uncertainty should not be ignored as they could introduce additional bias and uncertainty in the volume estimate. | URI: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/171051 | ISSN: | 0258-8900 | DOI: | 10.1007/s00445-023-01652-1 | Schools: | Asian School of the Environment | Research Centres: | Earth Observatory of Singapore | Rights: | © 2023 The Author(s). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecomm ons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. | Fulltext Permission: | open | Fulltext Availability: | With Fulltext |
Appears in Collections: | ASE Journal Articles |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
s00445-023-01652-1.pdf | 2.08 MB | Adobe PDF | ![]() View/Open |
SCOPUSTM
Citations
50
3
Updated on May 1, 2025
Page view(s)
137
Updated on May 6, 2025
Download(s) 50
56
Updated on May 6, 2025
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.