Benjamin R Edwards | Search USGS

USGS2026

Getting the story straight: Common misconceptions around volcanoes and eruptions with case studies of recent events

The ability to rapidly disseminate scientific knowledge across the world has never been greater. This is paralleled by the ability of rumors to spread equally far and fast. Popular misconceptions can take root and, without correction, take on the appearance of facts. Commonly misunderstood topics include those with attention-grabbing phrasing (e.g. “Pacific Ring of Fire”, “supervolcanoes”, or “mega-tsunamis”), the intersection of volcanic research with high-profile science topics (climate or human health), aspirational science goals (eruption forecasts), and basic terminology (volcanic ash versus smoke, or magma “chambers”). In this paper, we describe eighteen misconceptions grouped in six themes (seismology, volcanoes and climate, systems and structures, volcanic hazards, timescales, photographs and footage) commonly encountered by volcanologists who are actively engaging with the public and media both during and between eruptions. Each misconception description is accompanied by takeaway points and summaries of recent research to assist the reader with the information necessary to describe the issues. Finally, we present seven case studies where incorrect information was widely shared and counteracted at well-known volcanoes and recent eruptions at Mount Agung (Bali, Indonesia), Mount Etna (Sicily, Italy), Kīlauea (Hawaii, U.S.A.), Tajogaite (La Palma, Spain), La Soufrière (St. Vincent), Taal Volcano (Philippines), and Yellowstone caldera (U.S.A.). This work is intended to help both volcanologists and non-specialists get the story straight, and to effectively communicate processes and scales of volcanism and volcanic hazards, impacts, and risks.

Journal of Applied Volcanology↗

USGS2022

Lava-ice interactions during historical eruptions of Veniaminof Volcano, Alaska and the potential for meltwater floods and lahars

Veniaminof Volcano on the Alaska Peninsula of southwest Alaska is one of a small group of ice-clad volcanoes globally that erupts lava flows in the presence of glacier ice. Here, we describe the nature of lava-ice-snow interactions that have occurred during historical eruptions of the volcano since 1944. Lava flows with total volumes on the order of 0.006 km 3 have been erupted in 1983–1984, 1993–1994, 2013, and 2018. Smaller amounts of lava (1 × 10 −4 km 3 or less) were generated during eruptions in 1944 and 2021. All known historical eruptions have occurred at a 300-m-high cinder cone (informally named cone A) within the 8 × 10-km-diameter ice-filled caldera that characterizes Veniaminof Volcano. Supraglacial lava flows erupted at cone A, resulted in minor amounts of melting and did not lead to any significant outflows of water in nearby drainages. Subglacial effusion of lava in 1983–1984, 2021 and possibly in 1944 and 1993–1994 resulted in more significant melting including a partially water-filled melt pit, about 0.8 km 2 in area, that developed during the 1983–1984 eruption. The 1983–1984 event created an impression that meltwater floods from Mount Veniaminof’s ice-filled caldera could be significant and hazardous given the large amount of glacier ice resident within the caldera (ice volume about 8 km 3 ). To date, no evidence supporting catastrophic outflow of meltwater from lava-ice interactions at cone A has been found. Analysis of imagery from the 1983–1984 eruption shows that the initial phase erupted englacial lavas that melted ice/snow/firn from below, producing surface subsidence outward from the cone with no discernable surface connection to the summit vent on cone A. This also happened during the 2021 eruption, and possibly during the 1993–1994 eruption although meltwater lakes did not form during these events. Thus, historical eruptions at Veniaminof Volcano appear to have two different modes of effusive eruptive behavior, where lava reaches the ice subglacially from flank vents, or where lava flows are erupted subaerially from vents near the summit of cone A and flow down the cone on to the ice surface. When placed in the context of global lava-ice eruptions, in cases where lava flows melt the ice from the surface downward, the main hazards are from localized phreatic explosions as opposed to potential flood/lahar hazards. However, when lava effusion/emplacement occurs beneath the ice surface, melting is more rapid and can produce lakes whose drainage could plausibly produce localized floods and lahars.

Alaska↗