Geology topics

Paul Wessel

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Wessel.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Crustal structure along and surrounding the Hawaiian Islands: Volcanic island construction across scarred oceanic crust

The Hawaiian Ridge is a classic example of an intraplate volcanic island chain emplaced on oceanic lithosphere. We seek to constrain both the deformation from island loading around the Hawaiian Ridge and the influence of the oceanic lithosphere, including the Molokaʻi fracture zone (MFZ), on off-axis volcanic emplacement. To examine these processes, we conducted a marine geophysical experiment in 2018 that included the acquisition of eight multichannel seismic reflection lines and used a 6,600 in 3 tuned air gun array and an ultra-long hydrophone streamer cable towed behind R/V Marcus G. Langseth across and around the southern Hawaiian Ridge. We image both the top of igneous oceanic crust and the Moho, and we observe significant variations in regional crustal structure and thickness variations, Moho characteristics, the locations of the buried MFZ, and the flexure of the Pacific oceanic lithosphere under the Hawaiian Ridge. We observe up to ∼4.5 km of deflection of the igneous oceanic crust in response to the volcanic load with sediment thickness increasing to ∼3–3.4 km near the ridge but not correlating with the deflection. A systematic difference in igneous oceanic crustal thickness is found north (average ∼5.2 km) and south (average ∼5.9 km), of the MFZ that also correspond to changes in Moho characteristics. The MFZ itself is associated with the largest crustal thickness variations (∼3.7–7.6 km). Magma ascent through these different crustal regions may account for some variations of magmatic flux to the surface along the Hawaiian Ridge.

Hawaii↗

USGS2014

From field data to volumes: Constraining uncertainties in pyroclastic eruption parameters

In this study, we aim to understand the variability in eruption volume estimates derived from field studies of pyroclastic deposits. We distributed paper maps of the 1959 Kīlauea Iki tephra to 101 volcanologists worldwide, who produced hand-drawn isopachs. Across the returned maps, uncertainty in isopach areas is 7 % across the well-sampled deposit but increases to over 30 % for isopachs that are governed by the largest and smallest thickness measurements. We fit the exponential, power-law, and Weibull functions through the isopach thickness versus area 1/2 values and find volume estimate variations up to a factor of 4.9 for a single map. Across all maps and methodologies, we find an average standard deviation for a total volume of s  = 29 %. The volume uncertainties are largest for the most proximal ( s  = 62 %) and distal field ( s  = 53 %) and small for the densely sampled intermediate deposit ( s  = 8 %). For the Kīlauea Iki 1959 eruption, we find that the deposit beyond the 5-cm isopach contains only 2 % of the total erupted volume, whereas the near-source deposit contains 48 % and the intermediate deposit 50 % of the total volume. Thus, the relative uncertainty within each zone impacts the total volume estimates differently. The observed uncertainties for the different deposit regions in this study illustrate a fundamental problem of estimating eruption volumes: while some methodologies may provide better fits to the isopach data or rely on fewer free parameters, the main issue remains the predictive capabilities of the empirical functions for the regions where measurements are missing.

Bulletin of Volcanology↗

USGS2014

Constraining explosive volcanism: Subjective choices during estimates of eruption magnitude

When estimating the magnitude of explosive eruptions from their deposits, individuals make three sets of critical choices with respect to input data: the spacing of sampling sites, the selection of contour intervals to constrain the field measurements, and the hand contouring of thickness/isomass data, respectively. Volcanologists make subjective calls, as there are no accepted published protocols and few accounts of how these choices will impact estimates of eruption magnitude. Here, for the first time, we took a set of unpublished thickness measurements from the 1959 Kīlauea Iki pyroclastic fall deposit and asked 101 volcanologists worldwide to hand contour the data. First, there were surprisingly consistent volume estimates across maps with three different sampling densities. Second, the variability in volume calculations imparted by individuals’ choices of contours is also surprisingly low and lies between s  = 5 and 8 %. Third, volume estimation is insensitive to the extent to which different individuals “smooth” the raw data in constructing contour lines. Finally, large uncertainty is associated with the construction of the thinnest isopachs, which is likely to underestimate the actual trend of deposit thinning. The net result is that researchers can have considerable confidence in using volume or dispersal data from multiple authors and different deposits for comparative studies. These insights should help volcanologists around the world to optimize design and execution of field-based studies to characterize accurately the volume of pyroclastic deposits.

Bulletin of Volcanology↗