USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · sir20245062J

Special topic—Eruption plumes and clouds

Abstract

Introduction Explosive eruptions create plumes of volcanic ash and gas that can rise more than 30,000 feet (9.1 kilometers [km]) above sea level within minutes of eruption onset. The resulting clouds disperse under prevailing winds and may cause hazardous conditions hundreds to thousands of kilometers from the volcano, including in international airspace. Rapid detection and characterization of explosive activity is vital to mitigate the wide-ranging effects of volcanic ash. Ashfall thicknesses as small as a millimeter or so on the ground can affect infrastructure, agriculture, and air quality, requiring extensive clean-up procedures (Schuster, 1981; Warrick and others, 1981, U.S. Geological Survey, 2022). Volcanic clouds also pose substantial threats to aircraft. Since 1953, 88 encounters between airplanes and ash clouds have been documented worldwide (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2015, appendix F), resulting in aircraft damage and, in 9 cases, engine failure (Guffanti and others, 2010). In 1982, two large passenger planes suffered complete engine failure owing to eruptions in Indonesia (Global Volcanism Program, 1982) and a similar incident occurred over Alaska in 1989 (Casadevall, 1994). In all three cases, they were able to restart some engine capability and land safely once they emerged from the ash clouds, although with substantial damage (Guffanti and others, 2010). The clear threat to aviation has led to establishment of nine Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAAC) around the world to monitor and rapidly disseminate information about volcanic eruptions to the aviation community. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) volcano observatories issue the Volcano Observatory Notice for Aviation that informs of preeruptive unrest or eruptive activity. When ash-producing eruptions do occur, volcano observatories work closely with their regional VAAC to ensure consistency and accuracy in eruption onset time, cloud altitude, ash production, and duration as reported in Volcanic Ash Advisories. Explosive volcanism in the United States and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands prompts 50–100 such advisories in any given year (table J1). This collaborative effort is greatly aided by USGS detection and monitoring of eruption clouds to ensure a timely and coordinated response. To support these efforts to provide guidance on ash transport and fallout, the USGS developed the Ash3d volcanic ash dispersion model ( https://vsc-ash.wr.usgs.gov/ash3d-gui ) (Schwaiger and others, 2012). Automated simulations are run daily by the USGS for volcanoes that are in elevated states of unrest, and in response mode when eruptions occur. During eruptions, the model output is provided to local National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices to guide them in the issuance of their information products (such as special weather statements, ashfall advisories, or ashfall warnings), as well as to State and local governments and the public. Characterization of the eruption source is needed to estimate the parameters used to initialize the Ash3d model, and by the Anchorage and Washington VAACs to initialize other dispersion models that inform forecasts for the airborne volcanic cloud. The source parameters that can be provided by observation during an eruption include eruption start time, eruption cloud height over time, and eruption duration. Other, nonobservable source parameters, such as mass eruption rate and grain-size distribution, are based on empirical correlations and study of historical deposits. The goal is to provide a time series of cloud heights, mass eruption rates, and particle-size distributions that accurately reflects current conditions. When feasible, the USGS also provides guidance on the nature of ongoing eruptions and forecasts future activity using petrologic monitoring of collected tephra samples. The aims of providing accurate observable parameters are achieved through analysis of (1) near-real-time meteorological satellite data, (2) ground-based cameras (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–G, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062g.">chapter G , this volume; Orr and others, 2024), (3) weather radar, (4) volcanic lightning detection, and (5) ground-based ash sensors and sampling. Explosive eruptions can be detected by a variety of geophysical monitoring, including infrasound (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–C, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062c.">chapter C , this volume; Lyons and others, 2024) and seismicity (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–B, 9 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062b.">chapter B , this volume; Thelen and others, 2024). However, those methods cannot quantify the altitude, ash content, and dispersal dynamics of resulting volcanic clouds. Ideally, all available sources of monitoring data are synthesized to develop a coherent understanding of eruptive activity. The guidance summarized here provides a framework for characterizing volcanic clouds in the atmosphere and tracking the evolution of explosive eruption dynamics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David J. Schneider, Alexa R. Van Eaton. 2024-10-04. Special topic—Eruption plumes and clouds. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062j

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗