volcanic eruption effects essay

Volcanic Eruptions and Their Repose, Unrest, Precursors, and Timing (2017)

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

Volcanoes are a key part of the Earth system. Most of Earth’s atmosphere, water, and crust were delivered by volcanoes, and volcanoes continue to recycle earth materials. Volcanic eruptions are common. More than a dozen are usually erupting at any time somewhere on Earth, and close to 100 erupt in any year ( Loughlin et al., 2015 ).

Volcano landforms and eruptive behavior are diverse, reflecting the large number and complexity of interacting processes that govern the generation, storage, ascent, and eruption of magmas. Eruptions are influenced by the tectonic setting, the properties of Earth’s crust, and the history of the volcano. Yet, despite the great variability in the ways volcanoes erupt, eruptions are all governed by a common set of physical and chemical processes. Understanding how volcanoes form, how they erupt, and their consequences requires an understanding of the processes that cause rocks to melt and change composition, how magma is stored in the crust and then rises to the surface, and the interaction of magma with its surroundings. Our understanding of how volcanoes work and their consequences is also shared with the millions of people who visit U.S. volcano national parks each year.

Volcanoes have enormous destructive power. Eruptions can change weather patterns, disrupt climate, and cause widespread human suffering and, in the past, mass extinctions. Globally, volcanic eruptions caused about 80,000 deaths during the 20th century ( Sigurdsson et al., 2015 ). Even modest eruptions, such as the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption in Iceland, have multibillion-dollar global impacts through disruption of air traffic. The 2014 steam explosion at Mount Ontake, Japan, killed 57 people without any magma reaching the surface. Many volcanoes in the United States have the potential for much larger eruptions, such as the 1912 eruption of Katmai, Alaska, the largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century ( Hildreth and Fierstein, 2012 ). The 2008 eruption of the unmonitored Kasatochi volcano, Alaska, distributed volcanic gases over most of the continental United States within a week ( Figure 1.1 ).

Finally, volcanoes are important economically. Volcanic heat provides low-carbon geothermal energy. U.S. generation of geothermal energy accounts for nearly one-quarter of the global capacity ( Bertani, 2015 ). In addition, volcanoes act as magmatic and hydrothermal distilleries that create ore deposits, including gold and copper ores.

Moderate to large volcanic eruptions are infrequent yet high-consequence events. The impact of the largest possible eruption, similar to the super-eruptions at Yellowstone, Wyoming; Long Valley, California; or Valles Caldera, New Mexico, would exceed that of any other terrestrial natural event. Volcanoes pose the greatest natural hazard over time scales of several decades and longer, and at longer time scales they have the potential for global catastrophe ( Figure 1.2 ). While

the continental United States has not suffered a fatal eruption since 1980 at Mount St. Helens, the threat has only increased as more people move into volcanic areas.

Volcanic eruptions evolve over very different temporal and spatial scales than most other natural hazards ( Figure 1.3 ). In particular, many eruptions are preceded by signs of unrest that can serve as warnings, and an eruption itself often persists for an extended period of time. For example, the eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii has continued since 1983. We also know the locations of many volcanoes and, hence, where most eruptions will occur. For these reasons, the impacts of at least some types of volcanic eruptions should be easier to mitigate than other natural hazards.

Anticipating the largest volcanic eruptions is possible. Magma must rise to Earth’s surface and this movement is usually accompanied by precursors—changes in seismic, deformation, and geochemical signals that can be recorded by ground-based and space-borne instruments. However, depending on the monitoring infrastructure, precursors may present themselves over time scales that range from a few hours (e.g., 2002 Reventador, Ecuador, and 2015 Calbuco, Chile) to decades before eruption (e.g., 1994 Rabaul, Papua New Guinea). Moreover, not all signals of volcanic unrest are immediate precursors to surface eruptions (e.g., currently Long Valley, California, and Campi Flegrei, Italy).

Probabilistic forecasts account for this uncertainty using all potential eruption scenarios and all relevant data. An important consideration is that the historical record is short and biased. The instrumented record is even shorter and, for most volcanoes, spans only the last few decades—a miniscule fraction of their lifetime. Knowledge can be extended qualitatively using field studies of volcanic deposits, historical accounts, and proxy data, such as ice and marine sediment cores and speleothem (cave) records. Yet, these too are biased because they commonly do not record small to moderate eruptions.

Understanding volcanic eruptions requires contributions from a wide range of disciplines and approaches. Geologic studies play a critical role in reconstructing the past eruption history of volcanoes,

especially of the largest events, and in regions with no historical or directly observed eruptions. Geochemical and geophysical techniques are used to study volcano processes at scales ranging from crystals to plumes of volcanic ash. Models reveal essential processes that control volcanic eruptions, and guide data collection. Monitoring provides a wealth of information about the life cycle of volcanoes and vital clues about what kind of eruption is likely and when it may occur.

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT

At the request of managers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine established a committee to undertake the following tasks:

• Summarize current understanding of how magma is stored, ascends, and erupts.
• Discuss new disciplinary and interdisciplinary research on volcanic processes and precursors that could lead to forecasts of the type, size, and timing of volcanic eruptions.
• Describe new observations or instrument deployment strategies that could improve quantification of volcanic eruption processes and precursors.
• Identify priority research and observations needed to improve understanding of volcanic eruptions and to inform monitoring and early warning efforts.

The roles of the three agencies in advancing volcano science are summarized in Box 1.1 .

The committee held four meetings, including an international workshop, to gather information, deliberate, and prepare its report. The report is not intended to be a comprehensive review, but rather to provide a broad overview of the topics listed above. Chapter 2 addresses the opportunities for better understanding the storage, ascent, and eruption of magmas. Chapter 3 summarizes the challenges and prospects for forecasting eruptions and their consequences. Chapter 4 highlights repercussions of volcanic eruptions on a host of other Earth systems. Although not explicitly called out in the four tasks, the interactions between volcanoes and other Earth systems affect the consequences of eruptions, and offer opportunities to improve forecasting and obtain new insights into volcanic processes. Chapter 5 summarizes opportunities to strengthen

research in volcano science. Chapter 6 provides overarching conclusions. Supporting material appears in appendixes, including a list of volcano databases (see Appendix A ), a list of workshop participants (see Appendix B ), biographical sketches of the committee members (see Appendix C ), and a list of acronyms and abbreviations (see Appendix D ).

Background information on these topics is summarized in the rest of this chapter.

1.2 VOLCANOES IN THE UNITED STATES

The USGS has identified 169 potentially active volcanoes in the United States and its territories (e.g., Marianas), 55 of which pose a high threat or very high threat ( Ewert et al., 2005 ). Of the total, 84 are monitored by at least one seismometer, and only 3 have gas sensors (as of November 2016). 1 Volcanoes are found in the Cascade mountains, Aleutian arc, Hawaii, and the western interior of the continental United States ( Figure 1.4 ). The geographical extent and eruption hazards of these volcanoes are summarized below.

The Cascade volcanoes extend from Lassen Peak in northern California to Mount Meager in British Columbia. The historical record contains only small- to moderate-sized eruptions, but the geologic record reveals much larger eruptions ( Carey et al., 1995 ; Hildreth, 2007 ). Activity tends to be sporadic ( Figure 1.5 ). For example, nine Cascade eruptions occurred in the 1850s, but none occurred between 1915 and 1980, when Mount St. Helens erupted. Consequently, forecasting eruptions in the Cascades is subject to considerable uncertainty. Over the coming decades, there may be multiple eruptions from several volcanoes or no eruptions at all.

The Aleutian arc extends 2,500 km across the North Pacific and comprises more than 130 active and potentially active volcanoes. Although remote, these volcanoes pose a high risk to overflying aircraft that carry more than 30,000 passengers a day, and are monitored by a combination of ground- and space-based sensors. One or two small to moderate explosive eruptions occur in the Aleutians every year, and very large eruptions occur less frequently. For example, the world’s largest eruption of the 20th century occurred approximately 300 miles from Anchorage, in 1912.

In Hawaii, Kilauea has been erupting largely effusively since 1983, but the location and nature of eruptions can vary dramatically, presenting challenges for disaster preparation. The population at risk from large-volume, rapidly moving lava flows on the flanks of the Mauna Loa volcano has grown tremendously in the past few decades ( Dietterich and Cashman, 2014 ), and few island residents are prepared for the even larger magnitude explosive eruptions that are documented in the last 500 years ( Swanson et al., 2014 ).

All western states have potentially active volcanoes, from New Mexico, where lava flows have reached within a few kilometers of the Texas and Oklahoma borders ( Fitton et al., 1991 ), to Montana, which borders the Yellowstone caldera ( Christiansen, 1984 ). These volcanoes range from immense calderas that formed from super-eruptions ( Mastin et al., 2014 ) to small-volume basaltic volcanic fields that erupt lava flows and tephra for a few months to a few decades. Some of these eruptions are monogenic (erupt just once) and pose a special challenge for forecasting. Rates of activity in these distributed volcanic fields are low, with many eruptions during the past few thousand years (e.g., Dunbar, 1999 ; Fenton, 2012 ; Laughlin et al., 1994 ), but none during the past hundred years.

1.3 THE STRUCTURE OF A VOLCANO

Volcanoes often form prominent landforms, with imposing peaks that tower above the surrounding landscape, large depressions (calderas), or volcanic fields with numerous dispersed cinder cones, shield volcanoes, domes, and lava flows. These various landforms reflect the plate tectonic setting, the ways in which those volcanoes erupt, and the number of eruptions. Volcanic landforms change continuously through the interplay between constructive processes such as eruption and intrusion, and modification by tectonics, climate, and erosion. The stratigraphic and structural architecture of volcanoes yields critical information on eruption history and processes that operate within the volcano.

Beneath the volcano lies a magmatic system that in most cases extends through the crust, except during eruption. Depending on the setting, magmas may rise

___________________

1 Personal communication from Charles Mandeville, Program Coordinator, Volcano Hazards Program, U.S. Geological Survey, on November 26, 2016.

directly from the mantle or be staged in one or more storage regions within the crust before erupting. The uppermost part (within 2–3 km of Earth’s surface) often hosts an active hydrothermal system where meteoric groundwater mingles with magmatic volatiles and is heated by deeper magma. Identifying the extent and vigor of hydrothermal activity is important for three reasons: (1) much of the unrest at volcanoes occurs in hydrothermal systems, and understanding the interaction of hydrothermal and magmatic systems is important for forecasting; (2) pressure buildup can cause sudden and potentially deadly phreatic explosions from the hydrothermal system itself (such as on Ontake, Japan, in 2014), which, in turn, can influence the deeper magmatic system; and (3) hydrothermal systems are energy resources and create ore deposits.

Below the hydrothermal system lies a magma reservoir where magma accumulates and evolves prior to eruption. Although traditionally modeled as a fluid-filled cavity, there is growing evidence that magma reservoirs may comprise an interconnected complex of vertical and/or horizontal magma-filled cracks, or a partially molten mush zone, or interleaved lenses of magma and solid material ( Cashman and Giordano, 2014 ). In arc volcanoes, magma chambers are typically located 3–6 km below the surface. The magma chamber is usually connected to the surface via a fluid-filled conduit only during eruptions. In some settings, magma may ascend directly from the mantle without being stored in the crust.

In the broadest sense, long-lived magma reservoirs comprise both eruptible magma (often assumed to contain less than about 50 percent crystals) and an accumulation of crystals that grow along the margins or settle to the bottom of the magma chamber. Physical segregation of dense crystals and metals can cause the floor of the magma chamber to sag, a process balanced by upward migration of more buoyant melt. A long-lived magma chamber can thus become increasingly stratified in composition and density.

The deepest structure beneath volcanoes is less well constrained. Swarms of low-frequency earthquakes at mid- to lower-crustal depths (10–40 km) beneath volcanoes suggest that fluid is periodically transferred into the base of the crust ( Power et al., 2004 ). Tomographic studies reveal that active volcanic systems have deep crustal roots that contain, on average, a small fraction of melt, typically less than 10 percent. The spatial distribution of that melt fraction, particularly how much is concentrated in lenses or in larger magma bodies, is unknown. Erupted samples preserve petrologic and geochemical evidence of deep crystallization, which requires some degree of melt accumulation. Seismic imaging and sparse outcrops suggest that the proportion of unerupted solidified magma relative to the surrounding country rock increases with depth and that the deep roots of volcanoes are much more extensive than their surface expression.

1.4 MONITORING VOLCANOES

Volcano monitoring is critical for hazard forecasts, eruption forecasts, and risk mitigation. However, many volcanoes are not monitored at all, and others are monitored using only a few types of instruments. Some parameters, such as the mass, extent, and trajectory of a volcanic ash cloud, are more effectively measured by satellites. Other parameters, notably low-magnitude earthquakes and volcanic gas emissions that may signal an impending eruption, require ground-based monitoring on or close to the volcanic edifice. This section summarizes existing and emerging technologies for monitoring volcanoes from the ground and from space.

Monitoring Volcanoes on or Near the Ground

Ground-based monitoring provides data on the location and movement of magma. To adequately capture what is happening inside a volcano, it is necessary to obtain a long-term and continuous record, with periods spanning both volcanic quiescence and periods of unrest. High-frequency data sampling and efficient near-real-time relay of information are important, especially when processes within the volcano–magmatic–hydrothermal system are changing rapidly. Many ground-based field campaigns are time intensive and can be hazardous when volcanoes are active. In these situations, telemetry systems permit the safe and continuous collection of data, although the conditions can be harsh and the lifetime of instruments can be limited in these conditions.

Ground-based volcano monitoring falls into four broad categories: seismic, deformation, gas, and thermal monitoring ( Table 1.1 ). Seismic monitoring tools,

TABLE 1.1 Ground-Based Instrumentation for Monitoring Volcanoes

including seismometers and infrasound sensors, are used to detect vibrations caused by breakage of rock and movement of fluids and to assess the evolution of eruptive activity. Ambient seismic noise monitoring can image subsurface reservoirs and document changes in wave speed that may reflect stress. changes. Deformation monitoring tools, including tiltmeters, borehole strainmeters, the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS, which includes the Global Positioning System [GPS]), lidar, radar, and gravimeters, are used to detect the motion of magma and other fluids in the subsurface. Some of these tools, such as GNSS and lidar, are also used to detect erupted products, including ash clouds, pyroclastic density currents, and volcanic bombs. Gas monitoring tools, including a range of sensors ( Table 1.1 ), and direct sampling of gases and fluids are used to detect magma intrusions and changes in magma–hydrothermal interactions. Thermal monitoring tools, such as infrared cameras, are used to detect dome growth and lava breakouts. Continuous video or photographic observations are also commonly used and, despite their simplicity, most directly document volcanic activity. Less commonly used monitoring technologies, such as self-potential, electromagnetic techniques, and lightning detection are used to constrain fluid movement and to detect

ash clouds. In addition, unmanned aerial vehicles (e.g., aircraft and drones) are increasingly being used to collect data. Rapid sample collection and analysis is also becoming more common as a monitoring tool at volcano observatories. A schematic of ground-based monitoring techniques is shown in Figure 1.6 .

Monitoring Volcanoes from Space

Satellite-borne sensors and instruments provide synoptic observations during volcanic eruptions when collecting data from the ground is too hazardous or where volcanoes are too remote for regular observation. Repeat-pass data collected over years or decades provide a powerful means for detecting surface changes on active volcanoes. Improvements in instrument sensitivity, data availability, and the computational capacity required to process large volumes of data have led to a dramatic increase in “satellite volcano science.”

Although no satellite-borne sensor currently in orbit has been specifically designed for volcano monitoring, a number of sensors measure volcano-relevant

TABLE 1.2 Satellite-Borne Sensor Suite for Volcano Monitoring

NOTE: AIRS, Atmospheric Infrared Sounder; ALOS, Advanced Land Observing Satellite; ASTER, Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer; AVHRR, Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer; CALIPSO, Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation; COSMO-SkyMed, Constellation of Small Satellites for Mediterranean Basin Observation; GOES, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite; IASI, Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer; MISR, Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer; MLS, Microwave Limb Sounder; MODIS, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer; OMI, Ozone Monitoring Instrument; OMPS, Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite; SAGE, Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment.

parameters, including heat flux, gas and ash emissions, and deformation ( Table 1.2 ). Thermal infrared data are used to detect eruption onset and cessation, calculate lava effusion rates, map lava flows, and estimate ash column heights during explosive eruptions. In some cases, satellites may capture thermal precursors to eruptions, although low-temperature phenomena are challenging to detect. Both high-temporal/low-spatial-resolution (geostationary orbit) and high-spatial/low-temporal-resolution (polar orbit) thermal infrared observations are needed for global volcano monitoring.

Satellite-borne sensors are particularly effective for observing the emission and dispersion of volcanic gas and ash plumes in the atmosphere. Although several volcanic gas species can be detected from space (including SO 2 , BrO, OClO, H 2 S, HCl, and CO; Carn et al., 2016 ), SO 2 is the most readily measured, and it is also responsible for much of the impact of eruptions on climate. Satellite measurements of SO 2 are valuable for detecting eruptions, estimating global volcanic fluxes and recycling of other volatile species, and tracking volcanic clouds that may be hazardous to aviation in near real time. Volcanic ash cloud altitude is most accurately determined by spaceborne lidar, although spatial coverage is limited. Techniques for measuring volcanic CO 2 from space are under development and could lead to earlier detection of preeruptive volcanic degassing.

Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) enables global-scale background monitoring of volcano deformation ( Figure 1.7 ). InSAR provides much higher spatial resolution than GPS, but lower accuracy and temporal resolution. However, orbit repeat times will diminish as more InSAR missions are launched, such as the European Space Agency’s recently deployed Sentinel-1 satellite and the NASA–Indian Space Research Organisation synthetic aperture radar mission planned for launch in 2020.

1.5 ERUPTION BEHAVIOR

Eruptions range from violently explosive to gently effusive, from short lived (hours to days) to persistent over decades or centuries, from sustained to intermittent, and from steady to unsteady ( Siebert et al., 2015 ). Eruptions may initiate from processes within the magmatic system ( Section 1.3 ) or be triggered by processes and properties external to the volcano, such as precipitation, landslides, and earthquakes. The eruption behavior of a volcano may change over time. No classification scheme captures this full diversity of behaviors (see Bonadonna et al., 2016 ), but some common schemes to describe the style, magnitude, and intensity of eruptions are summarized below.

Eruption Magnitude and Intensity

The size of eruptions is usually described in terms of total erupted mass (or volume), often referred to as magnitude, and mass eruption rate, often referred to as intensity. Pyle (2015) quantified magnitude and eruption intensity as follows:

magnitude = log 10 (mass, in kg) – 7, and

intensity = log 10 (mass eruption rate, in kg/s) + 3.

The Volcano Explosivity Index (VEI) introduced by Newhall and Self (1982) assigns eruptions to a VEI class based primarily on measures of either magnitude (erupted mass or volume) or intensity (mass eruption rate and/or eruption plume height), with more weight given to magnitude. The VEI classes are summarized in Figure 1.8 . The VEI classification is still in use, despite its many limitations, such as its reliance on only a few types of measurements and its poor fit for small to moderate eruptions (see Bonadonna et al., 2016 ).

Smaller VEI events are relatively common, whereas larger VEI events are exponentially less frequent ( Siebert et al., 2015 ). For example, on average about three VEI 3 eruptions occur each year, whereas there is a 5 percent chance of a VEI 5 eruption and a 0.2 percent chance of a VEI 7 (e.g., Crater Lake, Oregon) event in any year.

Eruption Style

The style of an eruption encompasses factors such as eruption duration and steadiness, magnitude, gas flux, fountain or column height, and involvement of magma and/or external source of water (phreatic and phreatomagmatic eruptions). Eruptions are first divided into effusive (lava producing) and explosive (pyroclast producing) styles, although individual eruptions can be simultaneously effusive and weakly explosive, and can pass rapidly and repeatedly between eruption styles. Explosive eruptions are further subdivided into styles that are sustained on time scales of hours to days and styles that are short lived ( Table 1.3 ).

Classification of eruption style is often qualitative and based on historical accounts of characteristic eruptions from type-volcanoes. However, many type-volcanoes exhibit a range of eruption styles over time (e.g., progressing between Strombolian, Vulcanian, and Plinian behavior; see Fee et al., 2010 ), which has given rise to terms such as subplinian or violent Strombolian.

1.6 ERUPTION HAZARDS

Eruption hazards are diverse ( Figure 1.9 ) and may extend more than thousands of kilometers from an active volcano. From the perspective of risk and impact, it is useful to distinguish between near-source and distal hazards. Near-source hazards are far more unpredictable than distal hazards.

Near-source hazards include those that are airborne, such as tephra fallout, volcanic gases, and volcanic projectiles, and those that are transported laterally on or near the ground surface, such as pyroclastic density currents, lava flows, and lahars. Pyroclastic density currents are hot volcanic flows containing mixtures of gas and micron- to meter-sized volcanic particles. They can travel at velocities exceeding 100 km per hour. The heat combined with the high density of material within these flows obliterates objects in their path, making them the most destructive of volcanic hazards. Lava flows also destroy everything in their path, but usually move slowly enough to allow people to get out of the way. Lahars are mixtures of volcanic debris, sediment, and water that can travel many tens of kilometers along valleys and river channels. They may be triggered during an eruption by interaction between volcanic prod-

TABLE 1.3 Characteristics of Different Eruption Styles

ucts and snow, ice, rain, or groundwater. Lahars can be more devastating than the eruption itself. Ballistic blocks are large projectiles that typically fall within 1–5 km from vents.

The largest eruptions create distal hazards. Explosive eruptions produce plumes that are capable of dispersing ash hundreds to thousands of kilometers from the volcano. The thickness of ash deposited depends on the intensity and duration of the eruption and the wind direction. Airborne ash and ash fall are the most severe distal hazards and are likely to affect many more people than near-source hazards. They cause respiratory problems and roof collapse, and also affect transport networks and infrastructure needed to support emergency response. Volcanic ash is a serious risk to air traffic. Several jets fully loaded with passengers have temporarily lost power on all engines after encountering dilute ash clouds (e.g., Guffanti et al., 2010 ). Large lava flows, such as the 1783 Laki eruption in Iceland, emit volcanic gases that create respiratory problems and acidic rain more than 1,000 km from the eruption. Observed impacts of basaltic eruptions in Hawaii and Iceland include regional volcanic haze (“vog”) and acid rain that affect both agriculture and human health (e.g., Thordarson and Self, 2003 ) and fluorine can contaminate grazing land and water supplies (e.g., Cronin et al., 2003 ). Diffuse degassing of CO 2 can lead to deadly concentrations with fatal consequences such as occurred at Mammoth Lakes, California, or cause lakes to erupt, leading to massive CO 2 releases that suffocate people (e.g., Lake Nyos, Cameroon).

Secondary hazards can be more devastating than the initial eruption. Examples include lahars initiated by storms, earthquakes, landslides, and tsunamis from eruptions or flank collapse; volcanic ash remobilized by wind to affect human health and aviation for extended periods of time; and flooding because rain can no longer infiltrate the ground.

1.7 MODELING VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS

Volcanic processes are governed by the laws of mass, momentum, and energy conservation. It is possible to develop models for magmatic and volcanic phenomena based on these laws, given sufficient information on mechanical and thermodynamic properties of the different components and how they interact with each other. Models are being developed for all processes in volcanic systems, including melt transport in the mantle, the evolution of magma bodies within the crust, the ascent of magmas to the surface, and the fate of magma that erupts effusively or explosively.

A central challenge for developing models is that volcanic eruptions are complex multiphase and multicomponent systems that involve interacting processes over a wide range of length and time scales. For example, during storage and ascent, the composition, temperature, and physical properties of magma and host rocks evolve. Bubbles and crystals nucleate and grow in this magma and, in turn, greatly influence the properties of the magmas and lavas. In explosive eruptions, magma fragmentation creates a hot mixture of gas and particles with a wide range of sizes and densities. Magma also interacts with its surroundings: the deformable rocks that surround the magma chamber and conduit, the potentially volatile groundwater and surface water, a changing landscape over which pyroclastic density currents and lava flows travel, and the atmosphere through which eruption columns rise.

Models for volcanic phenomena that involve a small number of processes and that are relatively amenable to direct observation, such as volcanic plumes, are relatively straightforward to develop and test. In contrast, phenomena that occur underground are more difficult to model because there are more interacting processes. In those cases, direct validation is much more challenging and in many cases impossible. Forecasting ash dispersal using plume models is more straightforward and testable than forecasting the onset, duration, and style of eruption using models that seek to explain geophysical and geochemical precursors. In all cases, however, the use of even imperfect models helps improve the understanding of volcanic systems.

Modeling approaches can be divided into three categories:

• Reduced models make simplifying assumptions about dynamics, heat transfer, and geometry to develop first-order explanations for key properties and processes, such as the velocity of lava flows and pyroclastic density currents, the height of eruption columns, the magma chamber size and depth, the dispersal of tephra, and the ascent of magma in conduits. Well-calibrated or tested reduced models offer a straightforward ap-

proach for combining observations and models in real time in an operational setting (e.g., ash dispersal forecasting for aviation safety). Models may not need to be complex if they capture the most important processes, although simplifications require testing against more comprehensive models and observations.

• Multiphase and multiphysics models improve scientific understanding of complex processes by invoking fewer assumptions and idealizations than reduced models ( Figure 1.10 ), but at the expense of increased complexity and computational demands. They also require additional components, such as a model for how magma in magma chambers and conduits deforms when stressed; a model for turbulence in pyroclastic density currents and plumes; terms that describe the thermal and mechanical exchange among gases, crystals, and particles; and a description of ash aggregation in eruption columns. A central challenge for multiphysics models is integrating small-scale processes with large-scale dynamics. Many of the models used in volcano science build on understanding developed in other science and engineering fields and for other ap-

plications. Multiphysics and multiscale models benefit from rapidly expanding computational capabilities.

• Laboratory experiments simulate processes for which the geometry and physical and thermal processes and properties can be scaled ( Mader et al., 2004 ). Such experiments provide insights on fundamental processes, such as crystal dynamics in flowing magmas, entrainment in eruption columns, propagation of dikes, and sedimentation from pyroclastic density currents ( Figure 1.11 ). Experiments have also been used successfully to develop the subsystem models used in numerical simulations, and to validate computer simulations for known inputs and properties.

The great diversity of existing models reflects to a large extent the many interacting processes that operate in volcanic eruptions and the corresponding simplifying assumptions currently required to construct such models. The challenge in developing models is often highlighted in discrepancies between models and observations of natural systems. Nevertheless, eruption models reveal essential processes governing volcanic eruptions, and they provide a basis for interpreting measurements from prehistoric and active eruptions and for closing observational gaps. Mathematical models offer a guide for what observations will be most useful. They may also be used to make quantitative and testable predictions, supporting forecasting and hazard assessment.

Volcanic eruptions are common, with more than 50 volcanic eruptions in the United States alone in the past 31 years. These eruptions can have devastating economic and social consequences, even at great distances from the volcano. Fortunately many eruptions are preceded by unrest that can be detected using ground, airborne, and spaceborne instruments. Data from these instruments, combined with basic understanding of how volcanoes work, form the basis for forecasting eruptions—where, when, how big, how long, and the consequences.

Accurate forecasts of the likelihood and magnitude of an eruption in a specified timeframe are rooted in a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the storage, ascent, and eruption of magma. Yet our understanding of volcanic systems is incomplete and biased by the limited number of volcanoes and eruption styles observed with advanced instrumentation. Volcanic Eruptions and Their Repose, Unrest, Precursors, and Timing identifies key science questions, research and observation priorities, and approaches for building a volcano science community capable of tackling them. This report presents goals for making major advances in volcano science.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Natural Disasters — The Environmental Effects of Volcanoes: A Comprehensive Analysis

The Environmental Effects of Volcanoes: a Comprehensive Analysis

• Categories: Natural Disasters

About this sample

Words: 621 |

Published: Mar 6, 2024

Words: 621 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Air pollution and climate change, positive effects of volcanic activity, mitigating the environmental impacts of volcanoes.

• The release of gases and particulate matter into the atmosphere
• Global cooling caused by volcanic ash blocking out sunlight
• Contribution to air pollution and respiratory problems
• Impact on climate change through the release of carbon dioxide
• Creation of new landmasses supporting new ecosystems
• Increased biodiversity on newly formed landmasses
• Contribution to the formation of mineral deposits
• Use of volcanic ash and rocks for various purposes
• Close monitoring of volcanic activity to predict eruptions
• Development of effective mitigation strategies
• Reducing reliance on fossil fuels and supporting renewable energy sources
• Protection of vulnerable ecosystems and biodiversity

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 927 words

3 pages / 1325 words

2 pages / 1116 words

1 pages / 397 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Natural Disasters

Flash flooding is a common and dangerous natural disaster that can have devastating impacts on communities and ecosystems. Duck Creek, located in the southwestern United States, is no stranger to flash flooding, with its dry [...]

Doswell III, C. A., & Burgess, D. W. (1988). On Some Issues of United States Tornado Climatology. Monthly Weather Review, 116(3), 495–501.Brooks, H. E., & Doswell III, C. A. (2002). Deaths in the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City Tornado [...]

In conclusion, natural disasters have significant impacts on various aspects of human life, including the environment, economy, and society. While the occurrence of natural disasters may not be fully controlled, potential [...]

The sinking of the RMS Lusitania on May 7, 1915, stands as one of the most significant maritime disasters in history, not only due to the tragic loss of life but also because of its profound geopolitical ramifications. As a [...]

What is a disaster? According to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies a disaster is a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or society and causes human, [...]

Blake, E. S., Landsea, C. W., & Gibney, E. J. (2011). The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1851 to 2010 (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts). NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6.

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

How Volcanoes Influence Climate

Volcanic eruptions are responsible for releasing molten rock, or lava, from deep within the Earth, forming new rock on the Earth’s surface. But the largest and most explosive eruptions also impact the atmosphere.

The gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during large volcanic eruptions can influence climate. Particles spewed from volcanoes, like dust and ash, can cause temporary cooling by shading incoming solar radiation if the particles were launched high enough into the atmosphere. The cooling effect can last for months to years depending on the eruption. But volcanoes can also cause climate to warm when eruptions spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Over millions of years this caused global warming during times in Earth’s history when extreme amounts of volcanism emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases.

A huge cloud of volcanic ash and gas rises above Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, on June 12, 1991. Three days later, the volcano exploded in the second-largest volcanic eruption on Earth in the 20th century.

Even though volcanoes are in specific places on Earth, their effects can be more widely distributed as gases, dust, and ash get into the atmosphere. Because of atmospheric circulation patterns, eruptions in the tropics can have an effect on the climate in both hemispheres while eruptions at mid or high latitudes only have impact the hemisphere they are within.

Below is an overview of materials that make their way from volcanic eruptions into the atmosphere: particles of dust and ash, sulfur dioxide, and greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide.

Particles of Dust and Ash 

Volcanic ash or dust released into the atmosphere during an eruption shade sunlight and cause temporary cooling. Larger particles of ash have little effect because they fall out of the air quickly. Small ash particles form a dark cloud in the troposphere that shades and cools the area directly below. Most of these particles fall out of the atmosphere within rain a few hours or days after an eruption. But the smallest particles of dust get into the stratosphere and are able to travel vast distances, often worldwide. These tiny particles are so light that they can stay in the stratosphere for months, blocking sunlight and causing cooling over large areas of the Earth.

Sulfur from Volcanoes

Often, erupting volcanoes emit sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide is much more effective than ash particles at cooling the climate. The sulfur dioxide moves into the stratosphere and combines with water to form sulfuric acid aerosols. The sulfuric acid makes a haze of tiny droplets in the stratosphere that reflects incoming solar radiation, causing cooling of the Earth’s surface. The aerosols can stay in the stratosphere for up to three years, moved around by winds and causing significant cooling worldwide. Eventually, the droplets grow large enough to fall to Earth.

Greenhouse Gases Emitted by Volcanoes

Volcanoes also release large amounts of greenhouse gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide. The amounts put into the atmosphere from a large eruption doesn't change the global amounts of these gases very much. However, there have been times during Earth history when intense volcanism has significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and caused global warming.

• How the Geosphere Rocks Climate
• Volcanic Gases and Climate Change (USGS)
• How do volcanoes affect world climate? (Scientific American)
• What is Climate?

Related Links

• Measuring the Climate Effects of Volcanic Eruptions

Advertisement

Volcanic effects on climate: recent advances and future avenues

• Perspectives
• Open access
• Published: 04 May 2022
• Volume 84 , article number  54 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Lauren R. Marshall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1471-9481 1 ,
• Elena C. Maters   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1032-9865 1 ,
• Anja Schmidt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8759-2843 1 , 2   nAff3 ,
• Claudia Timmreck   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5355-0426 4 ,
• Alan Robock   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6319-5656 5 &
• Matthew Toohey   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7070-405X 6  

10k Accesses

14 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Volcanic eruptions have long been studied for their wide range of climatic effects. Although global-scale climatic impacts following the formation of stratospheric sulfate aerosol are well understood, many aspects of the evolution of the early volcanic aerosol cloud and regional impacts are uncertain. In the last twenty years, several advances have been made, mainly due to improved satellite measurements and observations enabling the effects of small-magnitude eruptions to be quantified, new proxy reconstructions used to investigate the impact of past eruptions, and state-of-the-art aerosol-climate modelling that has led to new insights on how volcanic eruptions affect the climate. Looking to the future, knowledge gaps include the role of co-emissions in volcanic plumes, the impact of eruptions on tropical hydroclimate and Northern Hemisphere winter climate, and the role of eruptions in long-term climate change. Future model development, dedicated model intercomparison projects, interdisciplinary collaborations, and the application of advanced statistical techniques will facilitate more complex and detailed studies. Ensuring that the next large-magnitude explosive eruption is well observed will be critical in providing invaluable observations that will bridge remaining gaps in our understanding.

Similar content being viewed by others

Timing and climate forcing of volcanic eruptions for the past 2,500 years

Role of volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols in the recent global surface warming slowdown

Role of atmospheric chemistry in the climate impacts of stratospheric volcanic injections

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Volcanic eruptions have been the most important natural cause of climate change for millennia (e.g. Hegerl et al. 2003 ; Schurer et al. 2013 ; 2014 ), and understanding their impact on climate is vital for investigating how the climate responds to an external forcing and for predicting future volcanic impacts that may influence society (e.g. Gao et al. 2021a ; Huhtamaa et al. 2021 ; Raible et al. 2016 ; Toohey et al. 2016 ). The fundamentals of how eruptions impact the climate are well-established: sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emitted during an eruption forms sulfate aerosol that scatters incoming solar radiation, causing a negative radiative forcing. If SO 2 is injected into the stratosphere, where the aerosol can reside for several years, the eruption can lead to a significant decrease in surface insolation and produce surface cooling (e.g. Dutton and Christy 1992 ; McCormick et al. 1995 ; Robock and Mao 1995 ). Sulfate aerosol also absorbs infrared radiation that can lead to a heating of the stratosphere (e.g. Labitzke and McCormick 1992 ; Stenchikov et al. 1998 ; Young et al. 1994 ). Both the cooling and heating effects lead to a cascade of further impacts. The cooling can reduce precipitation and ocean heat content, the heating can change circulation in the atmosphere, and the volcanic aerosol itself can impact atmospheric chemistry leading to ozone depletion (see Robock 2000 for a review). A summary of climate impacts arising from large-magnitude eruptions (defined here as explosive eruptions with injections of more than 5 Tg of SO 2 into the stratosphere) is shown in Fig.  1 . However, the intricacies of these wider impacts are less well understood than the overall impact on radiation and surface temperature, owing to a lack of observations following large-magnitude eruptions. Most of our knowledge stems from observations of the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, the most recent large-magnitude eruption to have occurred. In addition, differences in the results from different climate models and discrepancies between simulated and observed or reconstructed responses indicate that our understanding is far from complete (e.g. Chylek et al. 2020 ; Clyne et al. 2021 ; Pauling et al. 2021 ; Tejedor et al. 2021a , b ; Wilson et al. 2016 ; see Zanchettin et al. 2016 for a review).

Summary of major climate impacts following a large-magnitude eruption and the processes that produce them, updated from Timmreck ( 2012 ). Processes are in bold, climate impacts in blue. Italic text outlines the methods used to understand volcanic-climate impacts (observations, proxy reconstructions and modelling). Key outstanding research questions are shown in boxes. SST is sea surface temperature, ITCZ is Intertropical Convergence Zone and ENSO is El Niño Southern Oscillation. Review papers since that of Robock ( 2000 ) include those by Cole-Dai ( 2010 ) (ice core focus), Timmreck ( 2012 ) (climate modelling focus), Kremser et al. ( 2016 ) (non-volcanic and volcanic stratospheric aerosol) and Swingedouw et al. ( 2017 ) (explosive eruptions and modes of variability). A collection of highlights on the topic of volcanoes and climate can be found in the 2015 Past Global Changes (PAGES) magazine (LeGrande et al. 2015 )

Observations, proxy reconstructions and modelling of volcanic eruption climate effects: advances over the last twenty years

Numerous advances in the field of volcanic effects on climate have been made in the last twenty years despite the absence of a large-magnitude eruption. We now have comprehensive datasets of volcanic SO 2 , sulfate aerosol and aerosol extinction from ground-based, balloon and satellite measurements (e.g. Carn et al. 2016 ; Kremser et al. 2016 ; von Savigny et al. 2020 ). These data provide much better constraint on volcanic emissions and include daily and near-global observations that show where SO 2 and aerosol are dispersed. Improvements in the algorithms used in satellite retrievals have also enabled revised estimates of the emissions of past eruptions, for example those of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption (Carn 2021 ; Fisher et al. 2019 ). A notable advance has been the development of the Global Space-based Stratospheric Aerosol Climatology (GloSSAC) (Kovilakam et al. 2020 ; Thomason et al. 2018 ), which is a continuous record of stratospheric aerosol optical properties from 1979 to 2018. We have observed a minimum in stratospheric aerosol from 1998 to 2000, and in the years following, observations have demonstrated that stratospheric aerosol variability has been dominated by small-magnitude (< 5 Tg SO 2 ) eruptions (Solomon et al. 2011 ; Vernier et al. 2011 ), which have also been important in offsetting some anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing (e.g. Monerie et al. 2017 ; Ridley et al. 2014 ; Santer et al. 2014 ; 2015 ; Schmidt et al. 2018 ). The recognition that, together, small-magnitude eruptions are important for climatic perturbations is a shift from the traditional idea that it is only the large stratospheric-injecting events that matter for climate (although these do have much larger impacts per eruption). Observations, as well as aerosol modelling, in particular following the 2014–2015 Holuhraun eruption in Iceland, have also shown that eruptions that emit gases mainly into the troposphere can increase the reflectivity of clouds through an aerosol interaction known as the aerosol-indirect effect. This causes an additional radiative forcing of climate (e.g. Gettelman et al. 2015 ; Malavelle et al. 2017 ; McCoy and Hartmann 2015 ; Schmidt et al. 2010 ; 2012 ).

Reconstructions of past temperature variability and of past volcanic radiative forcing have also improved, revealing more details about large historic eruptions and their potential impacts (Sigl et al. 2015 ). Peaks in sulfate concentrations in ice cores have been used for many years to identify the occurrence of eruptions, as some of the volcanic sulfate aerosol is eventually deposited on the ice sheets and preserved in the ice (Fig.  1 ). The ice core sulfate concentrations are used to estimate the amount of sulfur that was injected into the atmosphere and the potential impact on climate (Arfeuille et al. 2014 ; Crowley and Unterman 2013 ; Gao et al. 2008 ). Several new, long and seasonally to annually resolved ice core records of volcanic sulfate (Cole-Dai 2010 ; Sigl et al. 2015 ) have thus helped to clarify the history and climate forcing of past volcanic eruptions. New reconstructions provide estimates of stratospheric SO 2 emissions, eruption latitudes and the stratospheric aerosol optical depth for eruptions over the last 2500 years (Toohey and Sigl 2017 ) to 10,000 years (Sigl et al. 2022 ). These reconstructions provide considerable updates to previous reconstructions which had large uncertainties and discrepancies in terms of dates and magnitudes for some eruptions (Jungclaus et al. 2017 ). Volcanic emissions and forcing reconstructions are important because they are needed as input to climate model simulations and for comparison with reconstructions of past temperature (e.g. Jungclaus et al. 2017 ; Sigl et al. 2015 ; Timmreck et al. 2021; Wilson et al. 2016 ). New large-scale tree-ring reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere (NH) surface temperature that better capture rapid temperature changes, and which are less prone to long-term memory effects, have shown the dominant role that volcanic eruptions exerted over preindustrial climate variability (e.g. Anchukaitis et al. 2017 ; Büntgen et al. 2021 ; King et al. 2021 ; Schneider et al. 2017 ; Wilson et al. 2016 ).

Climate model simulations of volcanic eruptions have evolved considerably in the last twenty years (Timmreck 2012 ; Timmreck et al. 2018 ). Climate models have higher spatial resolutions, allowing regional impacts to be better captured. They are also more complex, including more processes such as interactive chemistry and aerosol microphysics. As a result, simulating the effects of volcanic eruptions has evolved from simply turning down the magnitude of the incoming solar radiation to mimic the effects of volcanic aerosol (e.g. Bauer et al. 2003 ; Peng et al. 2010 ; Yoshimori et al. 2005 ), to prescribing aerosol properties (e.g. Ammann et al. 2003 ; Eyring et al. 2013 ; Gao et al.  2008 ), to simulating eruptions from an initial emission of SO 2 (e.g. 2006 Mills et al. 2016 ; SPARC 2006 ; Timmreck et al. 2018 ). Improved datasets of volcanic aerosol properties allow eruptions to be better represented in models that: 1) do not have complex aerosol schemes or choose not to use them because of computational cost or 2) prescribe the aerosol properties to be fully consistent with observations and to ensure that the radiative forcing from eruptions is consistent with other models (Zanchettin et al. 2016 ; 2022 ). Improved volcanic aerosol forcing datasets that include revised estimates of the post-Pinatubo period and the effects of small-magnitude eruptions have led to better matches between observations and model output of recent surface and tropospheric temperatures trends (e.g. Haywood et al. 2014 ; Fyfe et al. 2013 ; 2021 ; Santer et al. 2014 ) and of stratospheric warming after the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption (e.g. Arfeuille et al. 2013 ; Revell et al. 2017 ; Rieger et al. 2020 ).

Global climate models with stratospheric aerosol microphysical schemes simulate the aerosol lifecycle. This includes the conversion of SO 2 to sulphuric acid vapour, the formation (nucleation) and growth (through condensation and coagulation) of sulfate aerosol, its atmospheric transport, chemical and radiative interactions and deposition (Kremser et al. 2016 ). These models allow volcanic eruptions to be simulated with greater realism and for the effects of changing the eruption source parameters to be easily explored. Studies have demonstrated that the specific climatic impact is dependent on the emission magnitude, eruption season, altitude of emission and latitude of the volcano (e.g. Arfeuille et al. 2014 ; Marshall et al. 2019 ; Metzner et al. 2014 ; Stoffel et al. 2015 ; Toohey et al. 2011 ; 2019 ). Aerosol-climate modelling studies have also demonstrated the importance of aerosol growth in limiting the climate response as larger particles are less efficient at scattering radiation and fall out of the atmosphere more quickly than smaller particles (e.g. Arfeuille et al. 2014 ; English et al. 2013 ; Pinto et al. 1989 ; Timmreck et al. 2010 ). Accounting for aerosol growth subsequently reduces the surface temperature response following large-magnitude eruptions and has resulted in better agreement between simulated cooling and that reconstructed from tree rings for some large eruptions in the last millennium (Stoffel et al. 2015 ). Aerosol-climate modelling studies have also shown the importance of stratospheric heating due to absorption of infrared radiation by sulfate aerosol, as well as by ash and SO 2 , for lofting aerosol and its subsequent dispersion (e.g. Aquila et al. 2012 ; Muser et al. 2020 ; Niemeier et al. 2021 ; Pitari et al. 2016 ; Sekiya et al. 2016 ; Stenchikov et al. 2021 ).

Novel techniques, such as statistical emulation, have also been applied to aerosol-climate model simulations (Marshall et al. 2019 ). Statistical emulators can be used to understand how uncertainties in model inputs, in this case different eruption source parameters, can change the model output, such as the radiative forcing caused by an eruption. These emulators replace the model and can be used to make predictions of what the climate impact may be for any given eruption, even if it has not been simulated directly with the model. An example of an emulator surface that predicts the radiative forcing from explosive eruptions occurring at different latitudes and with different SO 2 emissions is shown in Fig.  2 .

Time-integrated volcanic radiative forcing over three years (in MJ m −2 ) as a function of eruption latitude and SO 2 emission (in Tg of SO 2 ) as predicted by a Gaussian process emulator trained from aerosol-climate simulations of a wide range of explosive eruptions ( modified from Marshall et al. 2019 ). The emulator allows radiative forcing to be predicted for a wide range of eruptions that were not explicitly simulated and which can be evaluated in a fraction of the time taken to run a climate model simulation

Summary of climate impacts

Over the past two decades, observations, proxies and modelling have, together, led to a better understanding of the wide range of volcano-climate impacts as outlined in Fig.  1 . Impacts include:

Changes to atmospheric dynamics (e.g. DallaSanta et al. 2019 ; Diallo et al. 2017 ; Toohey et al. 2014 ; Bittner et al. 2016b ) including NH winter warming (e.g. Bittner et al. 2016a ; Coupe and Robock 2021 ; Zambri and Robock 2016 ; Zambri et al. 2017 )

Ozone depletion (e.g. Brenna et al. 2019 ; Dhomse et al. 2015 ; Klobas et al. 2017 ; Ming et al. 2020 ; Solomon et al. 2016 )

A reduction in precipitation (e.g. Iles et al. 2013 ; Man et al. 2021 ; Stevenson et al. 2016 ; Trenberth and Dai 2007 )

Weaker monsoons (e.g. Fadnavis et al. 2021 ; Liu et al. 2016 ; Man et al. 2014 ; Paik et al. 2020 ; Zhuo et al. 2021 )

Reduced ocean heat content (e.g. Church et al. 2005 ; Dogar et al. 2020 ; Gleckler et al. 2006 ; 2016 ; Gupta and Marshall 2018 )

Shifts in the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) (e.g. Colose et al. 2016 ; Erez and Adam 2021 ; Haywood et al. 2013 ; Iles and Hegerl 2014 ; Ridley et al. 2015 )

Increased sea ice (e.g. Miller et al. 2012 ; Gagné et al. 2017 ; Pauling et al. 2021 ; Zanchettin et al. 2014 )

Shifts in phases of modes of climate variability (see Swingedouw et al. 2017 for a review) including the North Atlantic Oscillation (e.g. Hermanson et al. 2020 ; Sjolte et al. 2021 ; Zanchettin et al. 2013 ) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (e.g. Khodri et al. 2017 ; McGregor et al. 2020 ; Pausata et al. 2020 ; Predybaylo et al. 2020 ; Stevenson et al. 2016 )

Changes to Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (e.g. Fang et al. 2021 ; Mann et al. 2021 ; Ménégoz et al. 2018 ; Pausata et al. 2015 ; Waite et al. 2020 )

Disruption to the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (Brenna et al. 2021 ; DallaSanta et al. 2021 )

Changes to the carbon cycle (e.g. Delmelle et al. 2015 ; Eddebbar et al. 2019 ; Foley et al. 2014 ; Frölicher et al. 2011 )

Studies have demonstrated that, following eruptions, adjustments in atmospheric temperature and constituents, such as clouds and stratospheric water vapour, lead to additional radiative effects that alter the overall volcanic forcing (e.g. Gregory et al. 2016 ; Marshall et al. 2020 ; Schmidt et al. 2018 ). Co-emissions of halogens are important for catalysing ozone depletion, which leads to stratospheric cooling that alters both the radiative balance and aerosol size, further impacting the radiative forcing (Staunton-Sykes et al. 2021 ). Kroll et al. ( 2021 ) demonstrated that indirect increases in stratospheric water vapour following eruptions, which affects the radiative budget, depends on the eruption magnitude, the shape of the aerosol layer and its height with respect to the tropopause.

In addition to the recognition that small-magnitude eruptions matter for climate, high-latitude eruptions have also been shown to be more important than previously thought. Analysis of volcanic SO 2 emission reconstructions, tree-ring temperature reconstructions and aerosol-climate model simulations suggest that large high-latitude eruptions can significantly impact NH climate, producing stronger hemispheric cooling than tropical eruptions of the same magnitude (Toohey et al. 2019 ).

Knowledge gaps, uncertainties and future opportunities

For many of the climate impacts listed above, the exact response such as the timing, magnitude or spatial heterogeneity often differs not only between climate model studies, but also between model-simulated and observed or reconstructed responses (e.g. Driscoll et al. 2012 ; Pauling et al. 2021 ; Wilson et al. 2016 ; Zanchettin et al. 2016 ; Zhuo et al. 2020 ; Zuo et al. 2021 ). Aerosol-climate modelling studies have also demonstrated large discrepancies in the simulated aerosol size and dispersion following past large eruptions such as the 1815 eruption of Mt. Tambora, which leads to differences in the radiative impact, and is a result of differences in the models’ chemistry and aerosol schemes (Clyne et al. 2021 ). Here we outline some of the main knowledge gaps and research questions and suggest how they may be addressed in the future.

Processes in the volcanic cloud

Although observations of volcanic emissions have improved, uncertainties in satellite retrievals mean that it is still difficult to differentiate the components of even the best-observed volcanic clouds. This includes measurements of the magnitude and vertical distribution of SO 2 , halogens, water, ash and ice, and the amount and size of sulfate aerosol particles. Accurate estimates of these properties are needed to predict the potential climate impact and are required as input to aerosol-climate models. The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo remains a benchmark simulation for climate models. However, some aerosol-climate models must inject 10 Tg of SO 2 , lower than that inferred from satellite observations (~ 14–23 Tg; Guo et al. 2004 ), in order to best match with extinction measurements (Dhomse et al. 2014 ; 2020 ; Mills et al. 2016 ; 2017 ). This suggests that either a sink of SO 2 in the models is missing, such as scavenging by ash and ice, that the injection altitude and/or simulated lofting of the aerosol was incorrect (Stenchikov et al. 2021 ), or that the satellite retrievals overestimated the emission. Most of the ash produced during an eruption is short-lived in the atmosphere (Rose et al. 2001 ), but satellite, aircraft and balloon measurements indicate that some ash particles can remain airborne for many days to months (e.g. Mossop 1964 ; Pueschel et al. 1994 ; Vernier et al. 2016 ). Laboratory studies have shown that ash surfaces react with various gases and liquids such as SO 2 , sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, ozone and water (e.g. Delmelle et al. 2018 ; Durant et al. 2008 ; Gutiérrez et al. 2016 ; Maters et al. 2017 ). However, the impacts of ash–SO 2 interaction, for example, on the stratospheric SO 2 lifetime and sulfur burden have only recently been demonstrated in climate modelling (Zhu et al. 2020 ). Outstanding questions therefore include:

What is the ratio of SO 2 to ash and to what extent do they separate as they disperse?

How much of the SO 2 is scavenged by ash and ice and how does this impact the amount and size of sulfate aerosol and therefore the climate impact?

How large do the aerosol particles grow?

Going forward, more complex aerosol-climate models will enable the evolution of sulfate aerosol to be investigated in more detail. Examples include the addition of co-emissions, interactive photolysis where SO 2 and aerosol can affect the photolysis rates which impacts the conversion rate of SO 2 to sulfate (Osipov et al. 2020 ), and meteoric smoke particles, on which sulphuric acid can condense (e.g. Brooke et al. 2017 ; Mills et al. 2005 ; Saunders et al. 2012 ). Co-emissions of water and halogens can impact the chemical formation of the sulfate aerosol (LeGrande et al. 2016 ), but large uncertainties remain in the magnitudes of these emissions for past eruptions (Mather 2015 ) and not all models include them. Increasing experimental and observational data describing these processes, such as rates and magnitudes of SO 2 uptake by ash under various atmospherically relevant conditions (Lasne et al. 2022 ), present opportunities to integrate interactions involving co-emissions in modelling studies of the climate impacts of explosive eruptions. The Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project (ISA-MIP; Timmreck et al. 2018 ) will provide the first intercomparison of stratospheric aerosol properties amongst aerosol-climate models and proposes several standardised model experiments where results will be compared to in situ and satellite observations. Results should lead to an understanding of some of the structural and parametric uncertainties in models and how these differ between simulations of large-magnitude eruptions, such as the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, and small-magnitude eruptions.

Ultimately, the next large-magnitude eruption that occurs will offer the opportunity for new observations, in particular of interactions between SO 2 , ash, water and halogens, as well as the aerosol size distribution. Such an event will provide a new test case for climate models. Both national (Carn et al. 2021 ; Fischer et al. 2021 ) and international response initiatives (VolRes; https://wiki.earthdata.nasa.gov/display/volres ) have been developed to coordinate efforts to ensure a rapid response that will enable scientists to gain invaluable observations and to assess the potential impact on climate in the immediate aftermath of the eruption.

Regional impacts

The response of the NH winter climate and the response of ENSO to a volcanic forcing is particularly uncertain. Winter warming following large tropical eruptions is mechanistically often linked to a strengthening of the NH polar vortex, but models have not always been able to capture the response (e.g. Bittner et al. 2016a ; Driscoll et al. 2012 ; Toohey et al. 2014 ; see Zambri et al. 2017 for an overview), and the mechanism has been questioned (Polvani et al. 2019 ; Polvani and Camargo 2020 ), although re-supported by, for example, Azoulay et al. ( 2021 ). Coupe and Robock ( 2021 ) demonstrated that models could accurately simulate the winter warming after the eruptions of Agung in 1963, El Chichón in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, if they also accurately simulated the El Niño states that accompanied these eruptions. Observations and modelling suggest that El Niño events are more likely in the year following an eruption (e.g. Adams et al. 2003 ; Khodri et al. 2017 ; Stevenson et al. 2017 ), although models are still imperfect at capturing the response, and not all observations support the link (Dee et al. 2020 , but see Robock 2020 ; Zhu et al. 2022 ).

Changes to regional precipitation and the strength of monsoons are also uncertain due to complex spatial patterns, intermodal spread, discrepancies between proxies and disagreement between model simulations and observations or proxy reconstructions (e.g. Gao and Gao 2018 ; Iles et al. 2013 ; Rao et al. 2017 ; Tejedor et al. 2021a ). Hemispheric asymmetry in the sulfate aerosol distribution is important for the response of regional hydroclimate (e.g. Colose et al. 2016 ; Haywood et al. 2013 ; Jacobson et al. 2020 ; Yang et al. 2019 ), but the exact spatial distribution of aerosol is unknown for eruptions prior to the satellite era and therefore there are uncertainties in the volcanic forcing that some models rely upon. The response of precipitation and monsoons is also modulated by ENSO (e.g. Gao et al. 2021b ; Paik et al. 2020 ; Singh et al. 2020 ). Outstanding questions include:

How does the combination of ENSO and the forcing from eruptions (stratospheric heating and tropospheric cooling) impact NH winter circulation?

Is there a robust response of regional hydroclimate?

Multi-decadal impacts

Closely spaced volcanic eruptions have been hypothesised to lead to sustained cooling via ocean and sea-ice feedbacks (e.g. Miller et al. 2012 ; Toohey et al. 2016 ; van Dijk et al. 2021 ). However, uncertainties remain regarding the role of internal variability and the dependence on the current climate state (e.g. Moreno-Chamarro et al. 2017 ; Schneider et al. 2009 ; Slawinska and Robock 2018 ; Zanchettin et al. 2012 ). An outstanding question is, thus: Would a cluster of eruptions cause long-term cooling in today’s climate, or in the future? For a review of how climate change itself affects the climate impact of eruptions (climate-volcanic impacts), see Aubry et al. (2022, this issue).

Dedicated model intercomparison projects such as the Volcanic Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (VolMIP; Zanchettin et al. 2016 ), which is motivated by discrepancies between models, will be vital in improving our understanding of both regional and long-term impacts. The project defines a common volcanic forcing input and sets of initial conditions, which will account for previous uncertainties in modelling studies. Advanced statistical techniques, such as emulation, will also enable further detailed studies to explore the sensitivity of climate impacts to parameterisations in models and to the properties of the eruption, as proposed, for example, by Timmreck et al. ( 2018 ).

Reconstructing past volcanic forcing

Although reconstructions of past volcanic forcing have improved (Toohey and Sigl 2017 ), there is uncertainty in the conversion between volcanic sulfate deposition and the stratospheric sulfur burden, with modelling studies demonstrating that this depends on the properties of an eruption (Marshall et al. 2021 ; Toohey et al. 2013 ) and the model itself (Marshall et al. 2018 ). Uncertainties in past volcanic forcing underpin many model-data discrepancies (e.g. Stoffel et al. 2015 ; Wilson et al. 2016 ; Zanchettin et al. 2019 ). Thus, an outstanding question is: How much can ice core sulfate records tell us about the radiative forcing, such as the magnitude, duration, and spatial structure?

Closer connections have now been formed between modelling centres, volcanologists and observation specialists. This has been fostered by international groups such as the Volcanic Impacts on Climate and Society (VICS) PAGES working group. Multi-disciplinary studies that combine petrological, historical and climate modelling evidence have led to the attribution of previously unidentified eruptions (from sulfate spikes in ice cores) to specific volcanoes, including the 1257 eruption of Samalas (Lavigne et al. 2013 ) and the 43 BCE eruption of Okmok (McConnell et al. 2020 ). Attributing more of the unidentified eruptions to specific volcanoes will aid in improving past reconstructions. Improvements in the techniques used to measure sulfur isotopes in ice cores have also been made, which can indicate whether the sulfur emissions were injected into the troposphere or the stratosphere (e.g. Baroni et al. 2008 ; Burke et al. 2019 ; Savarino et al. 2003b ). Further aerosol-climate modelling studies to investigate the relationship between sulfate deposition and the radiative forcing, additional ice core records, analyses of sulfur as well as oxygen isotopes (e.g. Gautier et al. 2019 ; Martin 2018 ; Savarino et al. 2003a ), and more proxy reconstructions especially from the Southern Hemisphere where few records are currently available, will tell us more about these past eruptions and their climate impact.

Conclusions

Research into volcanic effects on the climate has evolved considerably over the last twenty years even in the absence of a large-magnitude eruption. We have better observations of eruptions, better proxy records of temperature changes, better reconstructions of past volcanic forcing from ice core records and state-of-the-art aerosol-climate models that allow eruptions to be simulated in greater detail and uncertainties to be explored. Ultimately, advances will be made following observations and modelling of the next large (≥ 5 Tg SO 2 ) eruption, from dedicated model intercomparison projects (VolMIP and ISA-MIP), as well as from interdisciplinary studies and collaborations between atmospheric scientists, climate modellers, volcanologists and historians. At the time of writing, we are just beginning to see the impact from the January 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai, the first explosive eruption since Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 to be observed by satellites where material has been injected to extremely high levels in the stratosphere (> 30 km). Although initial estimates of the SO 2 emission are too low (~ 0.4 Tg, https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/omps_2012_now.html#hunga , last accessed 28/1/22) to cause global cooling, we anticipate that this eruption will be the focus of many studies to come, especially in understanding interactions between ash, water, ice, halogens and sulfur in the volcanic plume, and impacts on regional weather.

Adams JB, Mann M, Ammann C (2003) Proxy evidence for an El Niño-like response to volcanic forcing. Nature 426(6964):274–278. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02101

Article   Google Scholar  

Ammann CM, Meehl GA, Washington WM, Zender CS (2003) A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate. Geophys Res Lett 30(12):1657. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL016875

Anchukaitis KJ, Wilson R, Briffa KR, Büntgen U, Cook ER, D’Arrigo R, Davi N, Esper J, Frank D, Gunnarson BE, Hegerl G, Helama S, Klesse S, Krusic PJ, Linderholm HW, Myglan V, Osborn TJ, Zhang P, Rydval M, Schneider L, Schurer A, Wiles G, Zorita E (2017) Last millennium Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings: Part II, spatially resolved reconstructions. Quat Sci Rev 163:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.02.020

Aquila V, Oman LD, Stolarski RS, Colarco PR, Newman PA (2012) Dispersion of the volcanic sulfate cloud from a Mount Pinatubo-like eruption. J Geophys Res Atmos 117:D06216. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jd016968

Arfeuille F, Luo BP, Heckendorn P, Weisenstein D, Sheng JX, Rozanov E, Schraner M, Bronnimann S, Thomason LW, Peter T (2013) Modeling the stratospheric warming following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption: uncertainties in aerosol extinctions. Atmos Chem Phys 13(22):11221–11234. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11221-2013

Arfeuille F, Weisenstein D, Mack H, Rozanov E, Peter T, Bronnimann S (2014) Volcanic forcing for climate modeling: a new microphysics-based data set covering years 1600-present. Clim Past 10(1):359–375. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-10-359-2014

Azoulay A, Schmidt H, Timmreck C (2021) The Arctic polar vortex response to volcanic forcing of different strengths. J Geophys Res Atmos 126(11):e2020JD034450. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034450

Baroni M, Savarino J, Cole-Dai J, Rai VK, Thiemens MH (2008) Anomalous sulfur isotope compositions of volcanic sulfate over the last millennium in Antarctic ice cores. J Geophys Res 113:D20112. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010185

Bauer E, Claussen M, Brovkin V, Huenerbein A (2003) Assessing climate forcings of the Earth system for the past millennium. Geophys Res Lett 30(6):1276. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016639

Brenna H, Kutterolf S, Krüger K (2019) Global ozone depletion and increase of UV radiation caused by pre-industrial tropical volcanic eruptions. Sci Rep 9(1):9435. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45630-0

Brenna H, Kutterolf S, Mills MJ, Niemeier U, Timmreck C, Krüger K (2021) Decadal disruption of the QBO by tropical volcanic supereruptions. Geophys Res Lett 48(5):e2020GL089687. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089687

Bittner M, Schmidt H, Timmreck C, Sienz F (2016a) Using a large ensemble of simulations to assess the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric dynamical response to tropical volcanic eruptions and its uncertainty. Geophys Res Lett 43:9324–9332. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070587

Bittner M, Timmreck C, Schmidt H, Toohey M, Krüger K (2016b) The impact of wave-mean flow interaction on the Northern Hemisphere polar vortex after tropical volcanic eruptions. J Geophys Res Atmos 121:5281–5297. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024603

Brooke JSA, Feng WH, Carrillo-Sanchez JD, Mann GW, James AD, Bardeen CG, Plane JMC (2017) Meteoric smoke deposition in the polar regions: A comparison of measurements with global atmospheric models. J Geophys Res Atmos 122(20):11112–11130. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jd027143

Büntgen U, Allen K, Anchukaitis KJ, Arseneault D, Boucher É, Bräuning A, Chatterjee S, Cherubini P, Churakova OV, Corona C, Gennaretti F, Grießinger J, Guillet S, Guiot J, Gunnarson B, Helama S, Hochreuther P, Hughes MK, Huybers P, Kirdyanov AV, Krusic PJ, Ludescher J, Meier WJH, Myglan VS, Nicolussi K, Oppenheimer C, Reinig F, Salzer MW, Seftigen K, Stine AR, Stoffel M, St. George S, Tejedor E, Trevino A, Trouet V, Wang J, Wilson R, Yang B, Xu G, Esper J, (2021) The influence of decision-making in tree ring-based climate reconstructions. Nat Commun 12(1):3411. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23627-6

Burke A, Moore KA, Sigl M, Nita DC, McConnell JR, Adkins JF (2019) Stratospheric eruptions from tropical and extra-tropical volcanoes constrained using high-resolution sulfur isotopes in ice cores. Earth Planet Sci Lett 521:113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.06.006

Carn SA (2021) Multi-Satellite Volcanic Sulfur Dioxide L4 Long-Term Global Database V4, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Science Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC). https://doi.org/10.5067/MEASURES/SO2/DATA405

Carn SA, Clarisse L, Prata AJ (2016) Multi-decadal satellite measurements of global volcanic degassing. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 311:99–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2016.01.002

Carn SA, Newman PA, Aquila V, Gonnermann H, Dufek J (2021) Anticipating climate impacts of major volcanic eruptions. Eos 102. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EO162730

Church J, White N, Arblaster J (2005) Significant decadal-scale impact of volcanic eruptions on sea level and ocean heat content. Nature 438(7064):74–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04237

Chylek P, Folland C, Klett JD, Dubey MK (2020) CMIP5 climate models overestimate cooling by volcanic aerosols. Geophys Res Lett 47(3):e2020GL087047. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087047

Clyne M, Lamarque JF, Mills MJ, Khodri M, Ball W, Bekki S, Dhomse SS, Lebas N, Mann G, Marshall L, Niemeier U, Poulain V, Robock A, Rozanov E, Schmidt A, Stenke A, Sukhodolov T, Timmreck C, Toohey M, Tummon F, Zanchettin D, Zhu Y, Toon OB (2021) Model physics and chemistry causing intermodel disagreement within the VolMIP-Tambora Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol ensemble. Atmos Chem Phys 21(5):3317–3343. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3317-2021

Cole-Dai J (2010) Volcanoes and climate. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 1(6):824–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.76

Colose CM, LeGrande AN, Vuille M (2016) Hemispherically asymmetric volcanic forcing of tropical hydroclimate during the last millennium. Earth Syst Dynam 7(3):681–696. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-681-2016

Coupe J, Robock A (2021) The influence of stratospheric soot and sulfate aerosols on the Northern Hemisphere wintertime atmospheric circulation. J Geophys Res Atmos 126(11):e2020JD034513. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034513

Crowley T, Unterman MB (2013) Technical details concerning development of a 1200 yr proxy index for global volcanism. Earth Syst Sci Data 5(1):187–197. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-187-2013

DallaSanta K, Gerber EP, Toohey M (2019) The circulation response to volcanic eruptions: The key roles of stratospheric warming and eddy interactions. J Clim 32(4):1101–1120. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0099.1

DallaSanta K, Orbe C, Rind D, Nazarenko L, Jonas J (2021) Response of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation to historical volcanic eruptions. Geophys Res Lett 48(20):e2021GL095412. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095412

Dee SG, Cobb KM, Emile-Geay J, Ault TR, Edwards RL, Cheng H, Charles CD (2020) No consistent ENSO response to volcanic forcing over the last millennium. Science 367(6485):1477–1481. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2000

Delmelle P, Maters EC, Oppenheimer C (2015) Volcanic influences on the carbon, sulfur, and halogen biogeochemical cycles. In The Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, Academic Press, pp 881–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385938-9.00050-X

Delmelle P, Wadsworth FB, Maters EC, Ayris PM (2018) High temperature reactions between gases and ash particles in volcanic eruption plumes. Rev Mineral Geochem 84(1):285–308.  https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2018.84.8

Dhomse SS, Emmerson KM, Mann GW, Bellouin N, Carslaw KS, Chipperfield MP, Hommel R, Abraham NL, Telford P, Braesicke P, Dalvi M, Johnson CE, O’Connor F, Morgenstern O, Pyle JA, Deshler T, Zawodny JM, Thomason LW (2014) Aerosol microphysics simulations of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption with the UM-UKCA composition-climate model. Atmos Chem Phys 14(20):11221–11246. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-11221-2014

Dhomse SS, Chipperfield MP, Feng W, Hossaini R, Mann GW, Santee ML (2015) Revisiting the hemispheric asymmetry in midlatitude ozone changes following the Mount Pinatubo eruption: A 3-D model study. Geophys Res Lett 42(8):3038–3047. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063052

Dhomse SS, Mann GW, Antuña Marrero JC, Shallcross SE, Chipperfield MP, Carslaw KS, Marshall L, Abraham NL, Johnson CE (2020) Evaluating the simulated radiative forcings, aerosol properties, and stratospheric warmings from the 1963 Mt Agung, 1982 El Chichón, and 1991 Mt Pinatubo volcanic aerosol clouds. Atmos Chem Phys 20(21):13627–13654. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13627-2020

Diallo M, Ploeger F, Konopka P, Birner T, Müller R, Riese M, Garny H, Legras B, Ray E, Berthet G, Jegou F (2017) Significant contributions of volcanic aerosols to decadal changes in the stratospheric circulation. Geophys Res Lett 44(20):10,780-10,791. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074662

Dogar MM, Sato T, Liu F (2020) Ocean sensitivity to periodic and constant volcanism. Sci Rep 10:293. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57027-0

Driscoll S, Bozzo A, Gray LJ, Robock A, Stenchikov G (2012) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations of climate following volcanic eruptions. J Geophys Res 117:D17105. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017607

Durant AJ, Shaw RA, Rose WI, Mi Y, Ernst GGJ (2008) Ice nucleation and overseeding of ice in volcanic clouds. J Geophys Res Atmos 113:D09206. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009064

Dutton EG, Christy JR (1992) Solar radiative forcing at selected locations and evidence for global lower tropospheric cooling following the eruptions of El Chichón and Pinatubo. Geophys Res Lett 19(23):2313–2316. https://doi.org/10.1029/92GL02495

Eddebbar YA, Rodgers KB, Long MC, Subramanian AC, Xie S, Keeling RF (2019) El Niño-like physical and biogeochemical ocean response to tropical eruptions. J Clim 32(9):2627–2649. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0458.1

English JM, Toon OB, Mills MJ (2013) Microphysical simulations of large volcanic eruptions: Pinatubo and Toba. J Geophys Res Atmos 118(4):1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50196

Erez M, Adam O (2021) Energetic constraints on the time-dependent response of the ITCZ to volcanic eruptions. J Clim 34(24):9989–10006. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0146.1

Eyring V, Lamarque JF, Hess P, Arfeuille F, Bowman K, Chipperfiel MP et al (2013) Overview of IGAC/SPARC Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) community simulations in support of upcoming ozone and climate assessments. SPARC Newsletter 40:48–66

Google Scholar  

Fadnavis S, Müller R, Chakraborty T, Sabin TP, Laakso A, Rap A, Griessbach S, Vernier J-P, Tilmes S (2021) The role of tropical volcanic eruptions in exacerbating Indian droughts. Sci Rep 11(1):2714. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81566-0

Fang SW, Khodri M, Timmreck C, Zanchettin D, Jungclaus J (2021) Disentangling internal and external contributions to Atlantic multidecadal variability over the past millennium. Geophys Res Lett 48(23):e2021GL095990. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095990

Fischer TP, Moran SC, Cooper KM, Roman DC, LaFemina PC (2021) Making the most of volcanic eruption responses. Eos 102.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EO162790

Fisher BL, Krotkov NA, Bhartia PK, Li C, Carn SA, Hughes E, Leonard PJT (2019) A new discrete wavelength backscattered ultraviolet algorithm for consistent volcanic SO2 retrievals from multiple satellite missions. Atmos Meas Tech 12(9):5137–5153. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5137-2019

Frölicher TL, Joos F, Raible CC (2011) Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 and climate to explosive volcanic eruptions. Biogeosciences 8(8):2317–2339. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-2317-2011

Foley AM, Willeit M, Brovkin V, Feulner G, Friend AD (2014) Quantifying the global carbon cycle response to volcanic stratospheric aerosol radiative forcing using Earth System Models. J Geophys Res Atmos 119(1):101–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD019724

Fyfe JC, von Salzen K, Cole JNS, Gillett NP, Vernier JP (2013) Surface response to stratospheric aerosol changes in a coupled atmosphere–ocean model. Geophys Res Lett 40:584–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50156

Fyfe JC, Kharin VV, Santer BD, Cole JN, Gillett NP (2021) Significant impact of forcing uncertainty in a large ensemble of climate model simulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118(23):e2016549118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016549118

Gagné M-È, Kirchmeier-Young MC, Gillett NP, Fyfe JC (2017) Arctic sea ice response to the eruptions of Agung, El Chichón, and Pinatubo. J Geophys Res Atmos 122(15):8071–8078. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027038

Gao CC, Gao YJ (2018) Revisited Asian monsoon hydroclimate response to volcanic eruptions. J Geophys Res Atmos 123(15):7883–7896. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027907

Gao C, Robock A, Ammann C (2008) Volcanic forcing of climate over the past 1500 years: An improved ice core-based index for climate models. J Geophys Res Atmos 113:D23111. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jd010239

Gao C, Ludlow F, Matthews JA, Stine AR, Robock A, Pan Y, Breen R, Nolan B, Sigl M (2021a) Volcanic climate impacts can act as ultimate and proximate causes of Chinese dynastic collapse. Commun Earth Environ 2:234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00284-7

Gao C-C, Yang L-S, Liu F (2021b) Hydroclimatic anomalies in China during the post-Laki years and the role of concurring El Niño. Adv Clim Change Res 12(2):187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2021.03.006

Gautier E, Savarino J, Hoek J, Erbland J, Caillon N, Hattori S, Yoshida N, Albalat E, Albarede F, Farquhar J (2019) 2600-years of stratospheric volcanism through sulfate isotopes. Nat Commun 10(1):466. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08357-0

Gettelman A, Schmidt A, Kristjansson JE (2015) Icelandic volcanic emissions and climate. Nat Geosci 8(4):243–243. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2376

Gleckler PJ, AchutaRao K, Gregory JM, Santer BD, Taylor KE, Wigley TML (2006) Krakatoa lives: The effect of volcanic eruptions on ocean heat content and thermal expansion. Geophys Res Lett 33:L17702. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026771

Gleckler PJ, Durack PJ, Stouffer RJ, Johnson GC, Forest CE (2016) Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades. Nat Clim Change 6(4):394–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2915

Gregory JM, Andrews T, Good P, Mauritsen T, Forster PM (2016) Small global-mean cooling due to volcanic radiative forcing. Clim Dyn 47(12):3979–3991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3055-1

Guo S, Bluth GJS, Rose WI, Watson IM, Prata AJ (2004) Re-evaluation of SO2 release of the 15 June 1991 Pinatubo eruption using ultraviolet and infrared satellite sensors. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 5(4):Q04001. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003gc000654

Gupta M, Marshall J (2018) The climate response to multiple volcanic eruptions mediated by ocean heat uptake: Damping processes and accumulation potential. J Clim 31(21):8669–8687. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0703.1

Gutiérrez X, Schiavi F, Keppler H (2016) The adsorption of HCl on volcanic ash. Earth Planet Sci Lett 438:66–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.01.019

Haywood JM, Jones A, Bellouin N, Stephenson D (2013) Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall. Nat Clim Change 3(7):660–665. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1857

Haywood JM, Jones A, Jones GS (2014) The impact of volcanic eruptions in the period 2000–2013 on global mean temperature trends evaluated in the HadGEM2-ES climate model. Atmos Sci Lett 15:92–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/asl2.471

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Baum SK, Kim K-Y, Hyde WT (2003) Detection of volcanic, solar, and greenhouse gas signals in paleo-reconstructions of Northern Hemispheric temperature. Geophys Res Lett 30(5):1242.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016635

Hermanson L, Bilbao R, Dunstone N, Ménégoz M, Ortega P, Pohlmann H, Robson JI, Smith DM, Strand G, Timmreck C, Yeager S, Danabasoglu G (2020) Robust multiyear climate impacts of volcanic eruptions in decadal prediction systems. J Geophys Res Atmos 125(9):e2019JD031739. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031739

Huhtamaa H, Stoffel M, Corona C (2021) Recession or resilience? Long-range socioeconomic consequences of the 17th century volcanic eruptions in the far north. Clim Past Discuss 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-147

Iles CE, Hegerl GC (2014) The global precipitation response to volcanic eruptions in the CMIP5 models. Environ Res Lett 9:104012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104012

Iles CE, Hegerl GC, Schurer AP, Zhang X (2013) The effect of volcanic eruptions on global precipitation. J Geophys Res Atmos 118(16):8770–8786. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50678

Jacobson TWP, Yang W, Vecchi GA, Horowitz LW (2020) Impact of volcanic aerosol hemispheric symmetry on Sahel rainfall. Clim Dyn 55(7):1733–1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05347-7

Jungclaus JH, Bard E, Baroni M, Braconnot P, Cao J, Chini LP, Egorova T, Evans M, González-Rouco JF, Goosse H, Hurtt GC, Joos F, Kaplan JO, Khodri M, Goldewijk KK, Krivova N, LeGrande AN, Lorenz SJ, Luterbacher J, Man W, Maycock AC, Meinshausen M, Moberg A, Muscheler R, Nehrbass-Ahles C, Otto-Bliesner BI, Phipps SJ, Pongratz J, Rozanov E, Schmidt GA, Schmidt H, Schmutz W, Schurer A, Shapiro AI, Sigl M, Smerdon JE, Solanki SK, Timmreck C, Toohey M, Usoskin IG, Wagner S, Wu C-J, Yeo KL, Zanchettin D, Zhang Q, Zorita E (2017) The PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6 – Part 3: The last millennium, scientific objective, and experimental design for the PMIP4 past1000 simulations. Geosci Model Dev 10(11):4005–4033. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4005-2017

Khodri M, Izumo T, Vialard J, Janicot S, Cassou C, Lengaigne M, Mignot J, Gastineau G, Guilyardi E, Lebas N, Robock A, McPhaden MJ (2017) Tropical explosive volcanic eruptions can trigger El Niño by cooling tropical Africa. Nat Commun 8(1):778. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00755-6

King JM, Anchukaitis KJ, Tierney JE, Hakim GJ, Emile-Geay J, Zhu F, Wilson R (2021) A data assimilation approach to last millennium temperature field reconstruction using a limited high-sensitivity proxy network. J Clim 34(17):7091–7111. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-20-0661.1

Klobas JE, Wilmouth DM, Weisenstein DK, Anderson JG, Salawitch RJ (2017) Ozone depletion following future volcanic eruptions. Geophys Res Lett 44(14):7490–7499. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073972

Kovilakam M, Thomason LW, Ernest N, Rieger L, Bourassa A, Millán L (2020) The Global Space-based Stratospheric Aerosol Climatology (version 2.0): 1979–2018. Earth Syst Sci Data 12(4):2607–2634. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2607-2020

Kremser S, Thomason LW, von Hobe M, Hermann M, Deshler T, Timmreck C, Toohey M, Stenke A, Schwarz JP, Weigel R, Fueglistaler S, Prata FJ, Vernier JP, Schlager H, Barnes JE, Antuna-Marrero JC, Fairlie D, Palm M, Mahieu E, Notholt J, Rex M, Bingen C, Vanhellemont F, Bourassa A, Plane JMC, Klocke D, Carn SA, Clarisse L, Trickl T, Neely R, James AD, Rieger L, Wilson JC, Meland B (2016) Stratospheric aerosol-Observations, processes, and impact on climate. Rev Geophys 54(2):278–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015rg000511

Kroll CA, Dacie S, Azoulay A, Schmidt H, Timmreck C (2021) The impact of volcanic eruptions of different magnitude on stratospheric water vapor in the tropics. Atmos Chem Phys 21(8):6565–6591. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6565-2021

Labitzke K, McCormick MP (1992) Stratospheric temperature increases due to Pinatubo aerosols. Geophys Res Lett 19(2):207–210. https://doi.org/10.1029/91GL02940

Lasne J, Urupina D, Maters EC, Delmelle P, Romanias MN, Thévenet F (2022) Photo-enhanced uptake of SO2 on Icelandic volcanic dusts. Environ Sci Atmos. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EA00094B

Lavigne F, Degeai JP, Komorowski JC, Guillet S, Robert V, Lahitte P, Oppenheimer C, Stoffel M, Vidal CM, Surono Pratomo I, Wassmer P, Hajdas I, Hadmoko DS, De Belizal E (2013) Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex. Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(42):16742–16747. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307520110

LeGrande A, Anchukaitis K, von Gunten L, Goodwin L (2015) Volcanoes and Climate. In: Past Global Changes Magazine. 41–84

LeGrande AN, Tsigaridis K, Bauer SE (2016) Role of atmospheric chemistry in the climate impacts of stratospheric volcanic injections. Nat Geosci 9(9):652–655. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2771

Liu F, Chai J, Wang B, Liu J, Zhang X, Wang Z (2016) Global monsoon precipitation responses to large volcanic eruptions. Sci Rep 6:24331. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24331

Malavelle FF, Haywood JM, Jones A, Gettelman A, Clarisse L, Bauduin S, Allan RP, Karset IHH, Kristjánsson JE, Oreopoulos L, Cho N, Lee D, Bellouin N, Boucher O, Grosvenor DP, Carslaw KS, Dhomse S, Mann GW, Schmidt A, Coe H, Hartley ME, Dalvi M, Hill AA, Johnson BT, Johnson CE, Knight JR, O’Connor FM, Partridge DG, Stier P, Myhre G, Platnick S, Stephens GL, Takahashi H, Thordarson T (2017) Strong constraints on aerosol–cloud interactions from volcanic eruptions. Nature 546(7659):485–491. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22974

Man WM, Zhou TJ, Jungclaus JH (2014) Effects of large volcanic eruptions on global summer climate and East Asian monsoon changes during the last millennium: Analysis of MPI-ESM simulations. J Clim 27(19):7394–7409. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-13-00739.1

Man W, Zuo M, Zhou T, Fasullo JT, Bethke I, Chen X, Zou L, Wu B (2021) Potential influences of volcanic eruptions on future global land monsoon precipitation changes. Earth’s Future 9:e2020EF001803. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001803

Mann ME, Steinman BA, Brouillette DJ, Miller SK (2021) Multidecadal climate oscillations during the past millennium driven by volcanic forcing. Science 371(6533):1014–1019. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc5810

Marshall L, Schmidt A, Toohey M, Carslaw KS, Mann GW, Sigl M, Khodri M, Timmreck C, Zanchettin D, Ball WT, Bekki S, Brooke JSA, Dhomse S, Johnson C, Lamarque JF, LeGrande AN, Mills MJ, Niemeier U, Pope JO, Poulain V, Robock A, Rozanov E, Stenke A, Sukhodolov T, Tilmes S, Tsigaridis K, Tummon F (2018) Multi-model comparison of the volcanic sulfate deposition from the 1815 eruption of Mt. Tambora Atmos Chem Phys 18(3):2307–2328. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2307-2018

Marshall L, Johnson JS, Mann GW, Lee L, Dhomse SS, Regayre L, Yoshioka M, Carslaw KS, Schmidt A (2019) Exploring how eruption source parameters affect volcanic radiative forcing using statistical emulation. J Geophys Res Atmos 124:964–985. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028675

Marshall LR, Smith CJ, Forster PM, Aubry TJ, Andrews T, Schmidt A (2020) Large variations in volcanic aerosol forcing efficiency due to eruption source parameters and rapid adjustments. Geophys Res Lett 47(19):e2020GL090241. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090241

Marshall LR, Schmidt A, Johnson JS, Mann GW, Lee LA, Rigby R, Carslaw KS (2021) Unknown eruption source parameters cause large uncertainty in historical volcanic radiative forcing reconstructions. J Geophys Res Atmos 126(13):e2020JD033578. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033578

Martin E (2018) Volcanic plume impact on the atmosphere and climate: O- and S-isotope insight into sulfate aerosol formation. Geosciences 8(6):198. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060198

Maters EC, Delmelle P, Rossi MJ, Ayris PM (2017) Reactive uptake of sulfur dioxide and ozone on volcanic glass and ash at ambient temperature. J Geophys Res Atmos 122(18):10,077–10,088. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026993

Mather TA (2015) Volcanoes and the environment: Lessons for understanding Earth’s past and future from studies of present-day volcanic emissions. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 304:160–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.08.016

McConnell JR, Sigl M, Plunkett G, Burke A, Kim WM, Raible CC, Wilson AI, Manning JG, Ludlow F, Chellman NJ, Innes HM, Yang Z, Larsen JF, Schaefer JR, Kipfstuhl S, Mojtabavi S, Wilhelms F, Opel T, Meyer H, Steffensen JP (2020) Extreme climate after massive eruption of Alaska’s Okmok volcano in 43 BCE and effects on the late Roman Republic and Ptolemaic Kingdom. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117(27):15443. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002722117

McCormick MP, Thomason LW, Trepte CR (1995) Atmospheric effects of the Mt Pinatubo eruption. Nature 373(6513):399–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/373399a0

McCoy DT, Hartmann DL (2015) Observations of a substantial cloud-aerosol indirect effect during the 2014–2015 Bárðarbunga-Veiðivötn fissure eruption in Iceland. Geophys Res Lett 42(23):10,409–10,414. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067070

McGregor S, Khodri M, Maher N, Ohba M, Pausata FSR, Stevenson S (2020) The effect of strong volcanic eruptions on ENSO. In: McPhaden MJ, Santoso A, Cai W (eds) El Niño Southern Oscillation in a changing climate, pp 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119548164.ch12

Ménégoz M, Cassou C, Swingedouw D, Ruprich-Robert Y, Bretonnière PA, Doblas-Reyes F (2018) Role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Variability in modulating the climate response to a Pinatubo-like volcanic eruption. Clim Dyn 51(5):1863–1883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3986-1

Metzner D, Kutterolf S, Toohey M, Timmreck C, Niemeier U, Freundt A, Kruger K (2014) Radiative forcing and climate impact resulting from SO2 injections based on a 200,000-year record of Plinian eruptions along the Central American Volcanic Arc. Int J Earth Sci 103(7):2063–2079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-012-0814-z

Miller GH, Geirsdottir A, Zhong YF, Larsen DJ, Otto-Bliesner BL, Holland MM, Bailey DA, Refsnider KA, Lehman SJ, Southon JR, Anderson C, Bjornsson H, Thordarson T (2012) Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks. Geophys Res Lett 39:L02708. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011gl050168

Mills MJ, Toon OB, Thomas GE (2005) Mesospheric sulfate aerosol layer. J Geophys Res 110:D24208. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006242

Mills MJ, Schmidt A, Easter R, Solomon S, Kinnison DE, Ghan SJ, Neely RR, Marsh DR, Conley A, Bardeen CG, Gettelman A (2016) Global volcanic aerosol properties derived from emissions, 1990–2014, using CESM1(WACCM). J Geophys Res Atmos 121(5):2332–2348. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015jd024290

Mills MJ, Richter JH, Tilmes S, Kravitz B, MacMartin DG, Glanville AA, Tribbia JJ, Lamarque JF, Vitt F, Schmidt A, Gettelman A, Hannay C, Bacmeister JT, Kinnison DE (2017) Radiative and chemical response to interactive stratospheric sulfate aerosols in fully coupled CESM1(WACCM). J Geophys Res Atmos 122(23):13,061–13,078. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jd027006

Ming A, Winton VHL, Keeble J, Abraham NL, Dalvi MC, Griffiths P, Caillon N, Jones AE, Mulvaney R, Savarino J, Frey MM, Yang X (2020) Stratospheric ozone changes from explosive tropical volcanoes: modeling and ice core constraints. J Geophys Res Atmos 125(11):e2019JD032290. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032290

Monerie P-A, Moine M-P, Terray L, Valcke S (2017) Quantifying the impact of early 21st century volcanic eruptions on global-mean surface temperature. Environ Res Lett 12(5):054010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cb5

Moreno-Chamarro E, Zanchettin D, Lohmann K, Luterbacher J, Jungclaus JH (2017) Winter amplification of the European Little Ice Age cooling by the subpolar gyre. Sci Rep 7(1):9981. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-07969-0

Mossop S (1964) Volcanic dust collected at an altitude of 20 km. Nature 203(4947):824–827. https://doi.org/10.1038/203824a0

Muser LO, Hoshyaripour GA, Bruckert J, Horváth Á, Malinina E, Wallis S, Prata FJ, Rozanov A, von Savigny C, Vogel H, Vogel B (2020) Particle aging and aerosol–radiation interaction affect volcanic plume dispersion: evidence from the Raikoke 2019 eruption. Atmos Chem Phys 20(23):15,015–15,036. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15015-2020

Niemeier U, Riede F, Timmreck C (2021) Simulation of ash clouds after a Laacher See-type eruption. Clim Past 17(2):633–652. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-633-2021

Osipov S, Stenchikov G, Tsigaridis K, LeGrande AN, Bauer SE (2020) The role of the SO2 radiative effect in sustaining the volcanic winter and soothing the Toba impact on climate. J Geophys Res Atmos 125(2):e2019JD031726. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031726

Paik S, Min S-K, Iles CE, Fischer EM, Schurer AP (2020) Volcanic-induced global monsoon drying modulated by diverse El Niño responses. Sci Adv 6(21):eaba1212. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1212

Pauling AG, Bushuk M, Bitz CM (2021) Robust Inter-Hemispheric Asymmetry in the Response to Symmetric Volcanic Forcing in Model Large Ensembles. Geophys Res Lett 48(9):e2021GL092558. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092558

Pausata FSR, Chafik L, Caballero R, Battisti DS (2015) Impacts of high-latitude volcanic eruptions on ENSO and AMOC. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(45):13,784–13,788. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509153112

Pausata FS, Zanchettin D, Karamperidou C, Caballero R, Battisti DS (2020) ITCZ shift and extratropical teleconnections drive ENSO response to volcanic eruptions. Sci Adv 6(23):eaaz5006. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5006

Peng Y, Shen C, Wang W, Xu Y (2010) Response of Summer Precipitation over Eastern China to Large Volcanic Eruptions. J Clim 23(3):818–824. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2950.1

Pinto JP, Turco RP, Toon OB (1989) Self-limiting physical and chemical effects in volcanic eruption clouds. J Geophys Res Atmos 94(D8):11165–11174. https://doi.org/10.1029/JD094iD08p11165

Pitari G, Di Genova G, Mancini E, Visioni D, Gandolfi I, Cionni I (2016) Stratospheric aerosols from major volcanic eruptions: A composition-climate model study of the aerosol cloud dispersal and e-folding time. Atmosphere 7(6):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos7060075

Polvani LM, Banerjee A, Schmidt A (2019) Northern Hemisphere continental winter warming following the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption: reconciling models and observations. Atmos Chem Phys 19(9):6351–6366. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-6351-2019

Polvani LM, Camargo SJ (2020) Scant evidence for a volcanically forced winter warming over Eurasia following the Krakatau eruption of August 1883. Atmos Chem Phys 20(22):13,687–13,700. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13687-2020

Predybaylo E, Stenchikov G, Wittenberg AT, Osipov S (2020) El Niño/Southern Oscillation response to low-latitude volcanic eruptions depends on ocean pre-conditions and eruption timing. Commun Earth Environ 1(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-0013-y

Pueschel RF, Russell PB, Allen DA, Ferry GV, Snetsinger KG, Livingston JM, Verma S (1994) Physical and optical properties of the Pinatubo volcanic aerosol: Aircraft observations with impactors and a Sun-tracking photometer. J Geophys Res Atmos 99(D6):12,915–12,922. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00621

Raible CC, Brönnimann S, Auchmann R, Brohan P, Frölicher TL, Graf H-F, Jones P et al (2016) Tambora 1815 as a test case for high impact volcanic eruptions: Earth system effects. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 7(4):569–589.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.407

Rao MP, Cook BI, Cook ER, D’Arrigo RD, Krusic PJ, Anchukaitis KJ, LeGrande AN, Buckley BM, Davi NK, Leland C, Griffin KL (2017) European and Mediterranean hydroclimate responses to tropical volcanic forcing over the last millennium. Geophys Res Lett 44(10):5104–5112. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073057

Revell LE, Stenke A, Luo B, Kremser S, Rozanov E, Sukhodolov T, Peter T (2017) Impacts of Mt Pinatubo volcanic aerosol on the tropical stratosphere in chemistry–climate model simulations using CCMI and CMIP6 stratospheric aerosol data. Atmos Chem Phys 17(21):13,139–13,150. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13139-2017

Ridley DA, Solomon S, Barnes JE, Burlakov VD, Deshler T, Dolgii SI, Herber AB, Nagai T, Neely RR III, Nevzorov AV, Ritter C, Sakai T, Santer BD, Sato M, Schmidt A, Uchino O, Vernier JP (2014) Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change. Geophys Res Lett 41(22):7763–7769. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061541

Ridley HE, Asmerom Y, Baldini JUL, Breitenbach SFM, Aquino VV, Prufer KM, Culleton BJ, Polyak V, Lechleitner FA, Kennett DJ, Zhang MH, Marwan N, Macpherson CG, Baldini LM, Xiao TY, Peterkin JL, Awe J, Haug GH (2015) Aerosol forcing of the position of the intertropical convergence zone since AD 1550. Nat Geosci 8(3):195–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2353

Rieger LA, Cole JNS, Fyfe JC, Po-Chedley S, Cameron-Smith PJ, Durack PJ, Gillett NP, Tang Q (2020) Quantifying CanESM5 and EAMv1 sensitivities to Mt Pinatubo volcanic forcing for the CMIP6 historical experiment. Geosci Model Dev 13(10):4831–4843. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4831-2020

Robock A (2000) Volcanic eruptions and climate. Rev Geophys 38(2):191–219. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998rg000054

Robock A (2020) Comment on "No consistent ENSO response to volcanic forcing over the last millennium". Science 369(6509) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc0502

Robock A, Mao J (1995) The volcanic signal in surface temperature observations. J Clim 8(5):1086–1103. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008%3c1086:TVSIST%3e2.0.CO;2

Rose WI, Bluth GJS, Schneider DJ, Ernst GGJ, Riley CM, Henderson LJ, McGimsey RG (2001) Observations of volcanic clouds in their first few days of atmospheric residence: the 1992 eruptions of Crater Peak, Mount Spurr Volcano, Alaska. J Geol 109(6):677–694. https://doi.org/10.1086/323189

Santer BD, Bonfils C, Painter JF, Zelinka MD, Mears C, Solomon S, Schmidt GA, Fyfe JC, Cole JNS, Nazarenko L, Taylor KE, Wentz FJ (2014) Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nat Geosci 7(3):185–189. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2098

Santer BD, Solomon S, Bonfils C, Zelinka MD, Painter JF, Beltran F, Fyfe JC, Johannesson G, Mears C, Ridley DA, Vernier J-P, Wentz FJ (2015) Observed multivariable signals of late 20th and early 21st century volcanic activity. Geophys Res Lett 42(2):500–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062366

Saunders RW, Dhomse S, Tian WS, Chipperfield MP, Plane JMC (2012) Interactions of meteoric smoke particles with sulphuric acid in the Earth’s stratosphere. Atmos Chem Phys 12(10):4387–4398. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4387-2012

Savarino J, Bekki S, Cole-Dai J, Thiemens MH (2003a) Evidence from sulfate mass independent oxygen isotopic compositions of dramatic changes in atmospheric oxidation following massive volcanic eruptions. J Geophys Res 108(D21):4671. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003737

Savarino J, Romero A, Cole-Dai J, Bekki S, Thiemens MH (2003b) UV induced mass-independent sulfur isotope fractionation in stratospheric volcanic sulfate. Geophys Res Lett 30(21):2131. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018134

Schmidt A, Carslaw KS, Mann GW, Wilson M, Breider TJ, Pickering SJ, Thordarson T (2010) The impact of the 1783–1784 AD Laki eruption on global aerosol formation processes and cloud condensation nuclei. Atmos Chem Phys 10(13):6025–6041. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-6025-2010

Schmidt A, Carslaw KS, Mann GW, Rap A, Pringle KJ, Spracklen DV, Wilson M, Forster PM (2012) Importance of tropospheric volcanic aerosol for indirect radiative forcing of climate. Atmos Chem Phys 12(16):7321–7339. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7321-2012

Schmidt A, Mills MJ, Ghan S, Gregory JM, Allan RP, Andrews T, Bardeen CG, Conley A, Forster PM, Gettelman A, Portmann RW, Solomon S, Toon OB (2018) Volcanic radiative forcing from 1979 to 2015. J Geophys Res Atmos 123(22):12,491–12,508. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd028776

Schneider DP, Ammann CM, Otto-Bliesner BL, Kaufman DS (2009) Climate response to large, high-latitude and low-latitude volcanic eruptions in the Community Climate System Model. J Geophys Res Atmos 114:D15101. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jd011222

Schneider L, Smerdon JE, Pretis F, Hartl-Meier C, Esper J (2017) A new archive of large volcanic events over the past millennium derived from reconstructed summer temperatures. Environ Res Lett 12(9):094005

Schurer AP, Hegerl GC, Mann ME, Tett SFB, Phipps SJ (2013) Separating forced from chaotic climate variability over the past millennium. J Clim 26(18):6954–6973. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00826.1

Schurer A, Tett S, Hegerl G (2014) Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium. Nature Geosci 7:104–108. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2040

Sekiya T, Sudo K, Nagai T (2016) Evolution of stratospheric sulfate aerosol from the 1991 Pinatubo eruption: Roles of aerosol microphysical processes. J Geophys Res Atmos 121(6):2911–2938. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024313

Sigl M, Winstrup M, McConnell JR, Welten KC, Plunkett G, Ludlow F, Buntgen U, Caffee M, Chellman N, Dahl-Jensen D, Fischer H, Kipfstuhl S, Kostick C, Maselli OJ, Mekhaldi F, Mulvaney R, Muscheler R, Pasteris DR, Pilcher JR, Salzer M, Schupbach S, Steffensen JP, Vinther BM, Woodruff TE (2015) Timing and climate forcing of volcanic eruptions for the past 2,500 years. Nature 523(7562):543–549. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14565

Sigl M, Toohey M, McConnell JR, Cole-Dai J, Severi M (2022) Volcanic stratospheric sulfur injections and aerosol optical depth during the Holocene (past 11,500 years) from a bipolar ice core array. Earth Syst Sci Data Discuss 2022:1–45. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-422

Singh M, Krishnan R, Goswami B, Choudhury AD, Swapna P, Vellore R, Prajeesh AG, Sandeep N, Venkataraman C, Donner RV, Marwan N, Kurths J (2020) Fingerprint of volcanic forcing on the ENSO-Indian monsoon coupling. Sci Adv 6(38):eaba8164. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba8164

Sjolte J, Adolphi F, Guðlaugsdòttir H, Muscheler R (2021) Major differences in regional climate impact between high- and low-latitude volcanic eruptions. Geophys Res Lett 48(8):e2020GL092017. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092017

Slawinska J, Robock A (2018) Impact of volcanic eruptions on decadal to centennial fluctuations of Arctic sea ice extent during the last millennium and on initiation of the Little Ice Age. J Clim 31(6):2145–2167. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0498.1

Solomon S, Daniel JS, Neely RR, Vernier J-P, Dutton EG, Thomason LW (2011) The persistently variable background stratospheric aerosol layer and global climate change. Science 333(6044):866–870. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206027

Solomon S, Ivy Diane J, Kinnison D, Mills Michael J, Neely Ryan R, Schmidt A (2016) Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer. Science 353(6296):269–274. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aae0061

SPARC, (2006) SPARC Assessment of Stratospheric Aerosol Properties (ASAP). Thomason L, Peter, T (Eds.), SPARC Report No. 4, WCRP-124, WMO/TD – No. 1295, available at www.sparc-climate.org/publications/sparc-reports/

Staunton-Sykes J, Aubry TJ, Shin YM, Weber J, Marshall LR, Luke Abraham N, Archibald A, Schmidt A (2021) Co-emission of volcanic sulfur and halogens amplifies volcanic effective radiative forcing. Atmos Chem Phys 21(11):9009–9029. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9009-2021

Stenchikov GL, Kirchner I, Robock A, Graf H-F, Antuña JC, Grainger RG, Lambert A, Thomason L (1998) Radiative forcing from the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. J Geophys Res 103(D12):13,837–13,857. https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00693

Stenchikov G, Ukhov A, Osipov S, Ahmadov R, Grell G, Cady-Pereira K, Mlawer E, Iacono M (2021) How does a Pinatubo-size volcanic cloud reach the middle stratosphere? J Geophys Res Atmos 126(10):e2020JD033829. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033829

Stevenson S, Otto-Bliesner B, Fasullo J, Brady E (2016) “El Niño like” hydroclimate responses to last millennium volcanic eruptions. J Clim 29(8):2907–2921. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0239.1

Stevenson S, Fasullo JT, Otto-Bliesner BL, Tomas RA, Gao C (2017) Role of eruption season in reconciling model and proxy responses to tropical volcanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(8):1822–1826. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612505114

Stoffel M, Khodri M, Corona C, Guillet S, Poulain V, Bekki S, Guiot J, Luckman BH, Oppenheimer C, Lebas N, Beniston M, Masson-Delmotte V (2015) Estimates of volcanic-induced cooling in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,500 years. Nat Geosci 8(10):784–788. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2526

Swingedouw D, Mignot J, Ortega P, Khodri M, Menegoz M, Cassou C, Hanquiez V (2017) Impact of explosive volcanic eruptions on the main climate variability modes. Global Planet Change 150:24–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.01.006

Tejedor E, Steiger NJ, Smerdon JE, Serrano-Notivoli R, Vuille M (2021a) Global hydroclimatic response to tropical volcanic eruptions over the last millennium. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118(12):e2019145118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019145118

Tejedor E, Steiger N, Smerdon JE, Serrano-Notivoli R, Vuille M (2021b) Global temperature responses to large tropical volcanic eruptions in paleo data assimilation products and climate model simulations over the last millennium. Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology 36(4):e2020PA004128. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020PA004128

Thomason LW, Ernest N, Millan L, Rieger L, Bourassa A, Vernier JP, Manney G, Luo BP, Arfeuille F, Peter T (2018) A global space-based stratospheric aerosol climatology: 1979–2016. Earth Syst Sci Data 10(1):469–492. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-469-2018

Timmreck C (2012) Modeling the climatic effects of large explosive volcanic eruptions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 3(6):545–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.192

Timmreck C, Graf HF, Lorenz SJ, Niemeier U, Zanchettin D, Matei D, Jungclaus JH, Crowley TJ (2010) Aerosol size confines climate response to volcanic super-eruptions. Geophys Res Lett 37:L24705. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010gl045464

Timmreck C, Mann GW, Aquila V, Hommel R, Lee LA, Schmidt A, Brühl C, Carn S, Chin M, Dhomse SS, Diehl T, English JM, Mills MJ, Neely R, Sheng J, Toohey M, Weisenstein D (2018) The Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project (ISA-MIP): motivation and experimental design. Geosci Model Dev 11(7):2581–2608. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2581-2018

Toohey M, Krüger K, Niemeier U, Timmreck C (2011) The influence of eruption season on the global aerosol evolution and radiative impact of tropical volcanic eruptions. Atmos Chem Phys 11(23):12,351–12,367. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-12351-2011

Toohey M, Krüger K, Timmreck C (2013) Volcanic sulfate deposition to Greenland and Antarctica: A modeling sensitivity study. J Geophys Res Atmos 118(10):4788–4800. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50428

Toohey M, Krüger K, Bittner M, Timmreck C, Schmidt H (2014) The impact of volcanic aerosol on the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex: mechanisms and sensitivity to forcing structure. Atmos Chem Phys 14(23):13,063–13,079. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13063-2014

Toohey M, Krüger K, Sigl M, Stordal F, Svensen H (2016) Climatic and societal impacts of a volcanic double event at the dawn of the Middle Ages. Clim Change 136(3–4):401–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1648-7

Toohey M, Krüger K, Schmidt H, Timmreck C, Sigl M, Stoffel M, Wilson R (2019) Disproportionately strong climate forcing from extratropical explosive volcanic eruptions. Nat Geosci 12(2):100–107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0286-2

Toohey M, Sigl M (2017) Volcanic stratospheric sulfur injections and aerosol optical depth from 500 BCE to 1900 CE. Earth Syst Sci Data 9(2):809–831. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-809-2017

Trenberth KE, Dai A (2007) Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys Res Lett 34(15) https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl030524

van Dijk E, Jungclaus J, Lorenz S, Timmreck C, Krüger K (2021) Was there a volcanic induced long lasting cooling over the Northern Hemisphere in the mid 6th–7th century? Clim past Discuss 1–33. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-49

Vernier J-P, Thomason LW, Pommereau J-P, Bourassa A, Pelon J, Garnier A, Hauchecorne A, Blanot L, Trepte C, Degenstein D, Vargas F (2011) Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade. Geophys Res Lett 38(12):L12807. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047563

Vernier J-P, Fairlie TD, Deshler T, Natarajan M, Knepp T, Foster K, Wienhold FG, Bedka KM, Thomason L, Trepte C (2016) In situ and space-based observations of the Kelud volcanic plume: The persistence of ash in the lower stratosphere. J Geophys Res Atmos 121(18):11,104–11,118. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025344

von Savigny C, Timmreck C, Buehler SA, Burrows JP, Giorgetta M, Hegerl G, Horvath A, Hoshyaripour G, Hoose C, Quaas J, Malinina E, Rozanov A, Schmidt H, Thomason L, Toohey M, Vogel B (2020) The Research Unit VolImpact: Revisiting the volcanic impact on atmosphere and climate - preparations for the next big volcanic eruption. Meteorol Z 29(1):3–18. https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/2019/0999

Waite AJ, Klavans JM, Clement AC, Murphy LN, Liebetrau V, Eisenhauer A, Weger RJ, Swart PK (2020) Observational and model evidence for an important role for volcanic forcing driving Atlantic multidecadal variability over the last 600 years. Geophys Res Lett 47(23):e2020GL089428. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089428

Wilson R, Anchukaitis K, Briffa KR, Buntgen U, Cook E, D’Arrigo R, Davi N, Esper J, Frank D, Gunnarson B, Hegerl G, Helama S, Klesse S, Krusic PJ, Linderholm HW, Myglan V, Osborn TJ, Rydval M, Schneider L, Schurer A, Wiles G, Zhang P, Zorita E (2016) Last millennium northern hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings: Part I: The long term context. Quat Sci Rev 134:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.12.005

Yang W, Vecchi GA, Fueglistaler S, Horowitz LW, Luet DJ, Muñoz ÁG, Paynter D, Underwood S (2019) Climate impacts from large volcanic eruptions in a high-resolution climate model: the importance of forcing structure. Geophys Res Lett 46(13):7690–7699. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082367

Yoshimori M, Stocker TF, Raible CC, Renold M (2005) Externally forced and internal variability in ensemble climate simulations of the Maunder Minimum. J Clim 18(20):4253–4270. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli3537.1

Young RE, Houben H, Toon OB (1994) Radiatively forced dispersion of the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cloud and induced temperature perturbations in the stratosphere during the first few months following the eruption. Geophys Res Lett 21(5):369–372. https://doi.org/10.1029/93GL03302

Zambri B, Robock A (2016) Winter warming and summer monsoon reduction after volcanic eruptions in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations. Geophys Res Lett 43(20):10,920–10,928. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070460

Zambri B, LeGrande AN, Robock A, Slawinska J (2017) Northern Hemisphere winter warming and summer monsoon reduction after volcanic eruptions over the last millennium. J Geophys Res Atmos 122(15):7971–7989. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026728

Zanchettin D, Timmreck C, Graf HF, Rubino A, Lorenz S, Lohmann K, Krüger K, Jungclaus JH (2012) Bi-decadal variability excited in the coupled ocean–atmosphere system by strong tropical volcanic eruptions. Clim Dyn 39(1):419–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1167-1

Zanchettin D, Timmreck C, Bothe O, Lorenz SJ, Hegerl G, Graf HF, Luterbacher J, Jungclaus JH (2013) Delayed winter warming: A robust decadal response to strong tropical volcanic eruptions? Geophys Res Lett 40(1):204–209. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012gl054403

Zanchettin D, Bothe O, Timmreck C, Bader J, Beitsch A, Graf HF, Notz D, Jungclaus JH (2014) Inter-hemispheric asymmetry in the sea-ice response to volcanic forcing simulated by MPI-ESM (COSMOS-Mill). Earth Syst Dynam 5(1):223–242. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-223-2014

Zanchettin D, Khodri M, Timmreck C, Toohey M, Schmidt A, Gerber EP, Hegerl G, Robock A, Pausata FSR, Ball WT, Bauer SE, Bekki S, Dhomse SS, LeGrande AN, Mann GW, Marshall L, Mills M, Marchand M, Niemeier U, Poulain V, Rozanov E, Rubino A, Stenke A, Tsigaridis K, Tummon F (2016) The Model Intercomparison Project on the climatic response to Volcanic forcing (VolMIP): experimental design and forcing input data for CMIP6. Geosci Model Dev 9(8):2701–2719. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2701-2016

Zanchettin D, Timmreck C, Toohey M, Jungclaus JH, Bittner M, Lorenz SJ, Rubino A (2019) Clarifying the relative role of forcing uncertainties and initial-condition unknowns in spreading the climate response to volcanic eruptions. Geophys Res Lett 46(3):1602–1611. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018gl081018

Zanchettin D, Timmreck C, Khodri M, Schmidt A, Toohey M, Abe M, Bekki S, Cole J, Fang SW, Feng W, Hegerl G, Johnson B, Lebas N, LeGrande AN, Mann GW, Marshall L, Rieger L, Robock A, Rubinetti S, Tsigaridis K, Weierbach H (2022) Effects of forcing differences and initial conditions on inter-model agreement in the VolMIP volc-pinatubo-full experiment. Geosci Model Dev 15(5):2265–2292. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022

Zhu F, Emile-Geay J, Anchukaitis KJ, Hakim GJ, Wittenberg A, Morales M, Toohey M, King J (2022) A re-appraisal of the ENSO response to volcanism with paleoclimate data assimilation. Nat Commun 13(1):747. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28210-1

Zhu Y, Toon OB, Jensen EJ, Bardeen CG, Mills MJ, Tolbert MA, Yu P, Woods S (2020) Persisting volcanic ash particles impact stratospheric SO2 lifetime and aerosol optical properties. Nat Commun 11(1):4526. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18352-5

Zhuo Z, Gao C, Kirchner I, Cubasch U (2020) Impact of volcanic aerosols on the hydrology of the Asian monsoon and westerlies-dominated subregions: comparison of proxy and multimodel ensemble means. J Geophys Res Atmos 125(18):e2020JD032831. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd032831

Zhuo Z, Kirchner I, Pfahl S, Cubasch U (2021) Climate impact of volcanic eruptions: the sensitivity to eruption season and latitude in MPI-ESM ensemble experiments. Atmos Chem Phys 21(17):13,425–13,442. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-13425-2021

Zuo M, Man W, Zhou T (2021) Dependence of global monsoon response to volcanic eruptions on the background oceanic states. J Clim 34(20):8273–8289. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0891.1

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Thomas Aubry for insightful discussions and comments, and an anonymous reviewer, Mark Jellinek and Andrew Harris for their reviews, which have greatly improved this manuscript. LM and AS were funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) grant VOL-CLIM (NE/S000887/1). AS was also funded by NERC grant NE/S00436X/1 (V-PLUS). CT was funded from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Research Unit VolImpact (FOR2820, Grant No. 398006378). AR was funded by U.S. National Science Foundation grant AGS-2017113. EM benefits from an Early Career Fellowship funded jointly by the Leverhulme Trust and Isaac Newton Trust. The authors acknowledge the important role that various activities have played in fostering interdisciplinary research on volcanoes and climate, including: the Volcanic Impacts on Climate and Society (VICS) working group of the Past Global Changes (PAGES) project, the Model Intercomparison Project on the climate response to Volcanic forcing (VolMIP) and the Stratospheric Sulfur and its Role in Climate (SSiRC) activity.

Author information

Anja Schmidt

Present address: German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IPA), Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, and Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Meteorological Institute, Munich, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Lauren R. Marshall, Elena C. Maters & Anja Schmidt

Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany

Claudia Timmreck

Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

Alan Robock

Institute of Space and Atmospheric Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Matthew Toohey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LM and AS formulated the initial proposal, with revisions from all authors. LM wrote the initial draft. EM and CT wrote parts of the manuscript, and AS, AR and MT substantially reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren R. Marshall .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: J.H. Fink

This paper constitutes part of a topical collection: Looking Backwards and Forwards in Volcanology: A Collection of Perspectives on the Trajectory of a Science

Rights and permissions

Open Access 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://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Marshall, L.R., Maters, E.C., Schmidt, A. et al. Volcanic effects on climate: recent advances and future avenues. Bull Volcanol 84 , 54 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01559-3

Download citation

Received : 13 October 2021

Accepted : 18 March 2022

Published : 04 May 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01559-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Volcanic eruptions
• Stratospheric aerosols
• Aerosol-climate modelling
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Volcanoes, explained

These fiery peaks have belched up molten rock, hot ash, and gas since Earth formed billions of years ago.

Volcanoes are Earth's geologic architects. They've created more than 80 percent of our planet's surface, laying the foundation that has allowed life to thrive. Their explosive force crafts mountains as well as craters. Lava rivers spread into bleak landscapes. But as time ticks by, the elements break down these volcanic rocks, liberating nutrients from their stony prisons and creating remarkably fertile soils that have allowed civilizations to flourish.

There are volcanoes on every continent, even Antarctica. Some 1,500 volcanoes are still considered potentially active around the world today; 161 of those—over 10 percent—sit within the boundaries of the United States .

But each volcano is different. Some burst to life in explosive eruptions, like the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo , and others burp rivers of lava in what's known as an effusive eruption, like the 2018 activity of Hawaii's Kilauea volcano. These differences are all thanks to the chemistry driving the molten activity. Effusive eruptions are more common when the magma is less viscous, or runny, which allows gas to escape and the magma to flow down the volcano's slopes. Explosive eruptions, however, happen when viscous molten rock traps the gasses, building pressure until it violently breaks free.

How do volcanoes form?

The majority of volcanoes in the world form along the boundaries of Earth's tectonic plates—massive expanses of our planet's lithosphere that continually shift, bumping into one another. When tectonic plates collide, one often plunges deep below the other in what's known as a subduction zone .

As the descending landmass sinks deep into the Earth, temperatures and pressures climb, releasing water from the rocks. The water slightly reduces the melting point of the overlying rock, forming magma that can work its way to the surface—the spark of life to reawaken a slumbering volcano.

Not all volcanoes are related to subduction, however. Another way volcanoes can form is what's known as hotspot volcanism. In this situation, a zone of magmatic activity —or a hotspot—in the middle of a tectonic plate can push up through the crust to form a volcano. Although the hotspot itself is thought to be largely stationary, the tectonic plates continue their slow march, building a line of volcanoes or islands on the surface. This mechanism is thought to be behind the Hawaii volcanic chain .

Where are all these volcanoes?

Some 75 percent of the world's active volcanoes are positioned around the ring of fire , a 25,000-mile long, horseshoe-shaped zone that stretches from the southern tip of South America across the West Coast of North America, through the Bering Sea to Japan, and on to New Zealand.

This region is where the edges of the Pacific and Nazca plates butt up against an array of other tectonic plates. Importantly, however, the volcanoes of the ring aren't geologically connected . In other words, a volcanic eruption in Indonesia is not related to one in Alaska, and it could not stir the infamous Yellowstone supervolcano .

What are some of the dangers from a volcano?

Volcanic eruptions pose many dangers aside from lava flows. It's important to heed local authorities' advice during active eruptions and evacuate regions when necessary.

You May Also Like

These crystal lava shards are ‘four dimensional videos’ of a volcano’s underworld

Iceland's latest eruption is quieting down—but the explosive upheaval isn't over yet

Scientists found life in a volcano’s ‘lava tubes’—life on other planets could be next

One particular danger is pyroclastic flows, avalanches of hot rocks, ash, and toxic gas that race down slopes at speeds as high as 450 miles an hour . Such an event was responsible for wiping out the people of Pompeii and Herculaneum after Mount Vesuvius erupted in A.D. 79 .

Similarly, volcanic mudflows called lahars can be very destructive. These fast-flowing waves of mud and debris can race down a volcano's flanks, burying entire towns.

Ash is another volcanic danger. Unlike the soft, fluffy bits of charred wood left after a campfire, volcanic ash is made of sharp fragments of rocks and volcanic glass each less than two millimeters across. The ash forms as the gasses within rising magma expand, shattering the cooling rocks as they burst from the volcano's mouth. It's not only dangerous to inhale , it's heavy and builds up quickly. Volcanic ash can collapse weak structures, cause power outages, and is a challenge to shovel away post-eruption.

Can we predict volcanic eruptions?

Volcanoes give some warning of pending eruption, making it vital for scientists to closely monitor any volcanoes near large population centers. Warning signs include small earthquakes, swelling or bulging of the volcano's sides, and increased emission of gasses from its vents. None of those signs necessarily mean an eruption is imminent, but they can help scientists evaluate the state of the volcano when magma is building.

However, it's impossible to say exactly when, or even if, any given volcano will erupt. Volcanoes don't run on a timetable like a train. This means it's impossible for one to be “overdue” for eruption —no matter what news headlines say.

What is the largest eruption in history?

The deadliest eruption in recorded history was the 1815 explosion of Mount Tabora in Indonesia. The blast was one of the most powerful ever documented and created a caldera —essentially a crater—4 miles across and more than 3,600 feet deep. A superheated plume of hot ash and gas shot 28 miles into the sky, producing numerous pyroclastic flows when it collapsed.

The eruption and its immediate dangers killed around 10,000 people. But that wasn't its only impact. The volcanic ash and gas injected into the atmosphere obscured the sun and increased the reflectivity of Earth, cooling its surface and causing what's known as the year without a summer. Starvation and disease during this time killed some 82,000 more people, and the gloomy conditions are often credited as the inspiration for gothic horror tales, such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein .

Although there have been several big eruptions in recorded history, volcanic eruptions today are no more frequent than there were a decade or even a century ago. At least a dozen volcanoes erupt on any given day. As monitoring capacity for—and interest in—volcanic eruptions increases, coverage of the activity more frequently appears in the news and on social media. As Erik Klemetti, associate professor of geosciences at Denison University, writes in The Washington Post : “The world is not more volcanically active, we’re just more volcanically aware.”

Related Topics

• VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS

Volcanoes don’t just erupt on schedule—but they have been in Iceland

Why Iceland's latest eruption may be the most dangerous in recent history

Startling volcanic activity has town in Iceland bracing for crisis

A huge volcano near Naples has been convulsing. What does it mean?

Mysteries lurk below Iceland's restless volcanoes

• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Photography
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Destination Guide
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Volcano World

• Central Andes (Under Construction)
• Hawaiian Volcanism
• Mount Saint Helens
• Volcanoes of Japan
• Extraterrestrial Volcanoes
• Teaching Resources
• Mount St Helens Living Lab
• Plate Tectonics
• Rocks and Minerals
• Prehistoric Earth
• Types of Volcanoes
• Eruption Styles
• Submarine Volcanoes
• Columnar Jointing
• Hydrovolcanism
• Volcanogenic Tsunamis
• Volcanic Minerals
• Volcanic Gases
• Volcanic Lightning
• Volcanic Sounds
• Volcanic Hazards
• GVP Current Eruption Reports
• US Volcano Activity Map
• Volcano Factoids
• Building Volcano Models
• Interviews with Volcanologists
• Working on Volcanoes
• Art Gallery
• Volcano Games
• Mount St. Helens by Helicopter
• Virtual Altiplano
• Virtual Altiplano Bolivia
• Around Santorini
• Climbing Mt Asama
• Driving Kilauea Rim Drive
• Exploring the Canary Islands
• Hiking Mount Ijen
• To the Top of Beerenberg
• Volcano Folklore
• Volcanic Parks
• Volcano Gallery

You are here

How do volcanoes affect people.

Volcanoes affect people in many ways, some are good, some are not. Some of the bad ways are that houses, buildings, roads, and fields can get covered with ash. As long as you can get the ash off (especially if it is wet), your house may not collapse, but often the people leave because of the ash and are not around to continually clean off their roofs. If the ashfall is really heavy it can make it impossible to breathe.

Lava flows are almost always too slow to run over people, but they can certainly run over houses, roads, and any other structures.

Pyroclastic flows are mixtures of hot gas and ash, and they travel very quickly down the slopes of volcanoes. They are so hot and choking that if you are caught in one it will kill you. They are also so fast (100-200 km/hour) that you cannot out-run them. If a volcano that is known for producing pyroclastic flows is looking like it may erupt soon, the best thing is for you to leave before it does.

Some of the good ways that volcanoes affect people include producing spectacular scenery, and producing very rich soils for farming.

Water vapor, the most common gas released by volcanoes, causes few problems. Sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen are released in smaller amounts. Carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen fluoride are also released but typically less than 1 percent by volume.Gases pose the greatest hazard close to the vent where concentrations are greatest. Away from the vent the gases quickly become diluted by air. For most people even a brief visit to a vent is not a health hazard. However, it can be dangerous for people with respiratory problems.

The continuous eruption at Kilauea presents some new problems. Long term exposure to volcanic fumes may aggravate existing respiratory problems. It may also cause headaches and fatigue in regularly healthy people. The gases also limit visibility, especially on the leeward side of the island where they become trapped by atmospheric conditions.

Source of Information:  Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii by Christina Heliker, 1991, U.S. Geological Survey General Interest Publication.

A deadly eruption

The 1815 explosive eruption of  Tambora volcano  in Indonesia and the subsequent caldera collapse produced 9.5 cubic miles (40 cubic kilometers) of ash. The eruption killed 10,000 people. An additional 80,000 people died from crop loss and famine.

To put it mildly, ash is bad for jet aircraft engines. Apparently the problem is much more severe for modern jet engines which burn hotter than the older ones. Parts of these engines operate at temperatures that are high enough to melt ash that is ingested. Essentially you end up with tiny blobs of lava inside the engine. This is then forced back into other parts where the temperatures are lower and the stuff solidifies. As you can imagine this is pretty bad. One problem that I heard about is that pilots start losing power and apply the throttle, causing the engine to be even hotter and melt more ash.Added to this is the fact that ash is actually tiny particles of glass plus small mineral shards–pretty abrasive stuff. You can imagine that dumping a whole bunch of abrasive powder into a jet engine is not good for the engine. This has been a pretty non-scientific explanation of the problem. I just found an article that describes the problem a little more technically.

“The ash erodes sharp blades in the compressor, reducing its efficiency. The ash melts in the combustion chamber to form molten glass. The ash then solidifies on turbine blades, blocking air flow and causing the engine to stall.” This comes from the FAA Aviation Safety Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3.   

Safe distance

The distance you have to evacuate depends entirely on what kind of eruption is going on. For example, Pinatubo, one of the largest recent eruptions sent pyroclastic flows at least 18 km down its flanks, and pumice falls were hot and heavy even beyond that. For example, pumice 7 cm across fell at Clark Air base which is 25 km from the volcano! A 7 cm pumice won’t necessarily kill you but it does mean that there is a lot of pumice falling, and if you don’t get out and continuously sweep off your roof it may fall in and you’ll get squashed.On the other hand, the current eruption at Ruapehu is relatively small. In fact, there were skiers up on the slopes when the eruptions commenced, and even though they were only 1-2 km from the vent they managed to escape. The volcanologists routinely go up on the higher slopes of Ruapehu during these ongoing eruptions to collect ash and take photographs.

So you see, you need to know something about what you think the volcano is going to do before you decide how far to run away. I guess if you have no idea of what the volcano is planning, and have no idea of what it has done in the past, you might want to be at least 25-30 km away, make sure you have a good escape route to get even farther away if necessary, and by all means stay out of low-lying areas!

Cities and Towns

The effect an eruption will have on a nearby city could vary from none at all to catastrophic. For example, atmospheric conditions might carry ash away from the city or topography might direct lahars and pyroclastic flows to unpopulated areas. In contrast, under certain atmospheric, eruption and/or topographic conditions, lahars, pyroclastic flows, and/or ash fall could enter the city causing death and destruction.

This scenario brings up several interesting problems. How do you evacuate a large population if there is little warning before the eruption? Where do these people go? If an eruption is highly likely yet hasn’t happened yet how long can people be kept away from their homes and businesses?

I should point out that in most volcanic crises geologists advise local civil defense authorities. The civil defense authorities decide what to do concerning evacuations, etc.

The  IAVCEI  has a program to promote research on “Decade” Volcanoes. Decade volcanoes are likely to erupt in the near future and are near large population centers. Mount Rainier in Washington and Mauna Loa in Hawaii are two Decade volcanoes in the U.S. Other Decade volcanoes include Santa Maria, Stromboli, Pinatubo, and Unzen.

What happens to the towns around a volcano when it erupts depends on many things. It depends of the size and type of eruption and the size and location of the town. A few examples might help. The 1984 eruption of Mauna Loa in Hawaii sent lava towards Hilo but the eruption stopped before the flows reached the town. The 1973 eruption of  Heimaey  in Iceland buried much of the nearby town of Heimaey under lava and cinder. The  1960 eruption  of Kilauea in Hawaii buried all of the nearby town of Kapoho under lava and cinder. In 1980, ash from  Mount St. Helens  fell on many towns in Washington and Oregon. The 1902 eruption of  Mount Pelee  on the island of Martinique destroyed the town of Saint Pierre with pyroclastic flows. In 1985, the town of Armero was partially buried by lahars generated on Ruiz. For more examples see Decker and Decker (1989).

Mount Mayon , in the Philippines, is a classic example of a stratovolcano.  Image credit:  Steve O’Meara

Source of Information: Decker, R., and Decker, B., 1989, Volcanoes: W.H. Freeman, New York, 285 p.

Contact Info

VW is a higher education, k-12, and public outreach project of the Oregon Space Grant Consortium administered through the Department of Geosciences at Oregon State University.

Disclaimers and Policies | Login

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

A volcano is an opening in a planet or moon’s crust through which molten rock and gases trapped under the surface erupt, often forming a hill or mountain.

Volcanic eruption

Volcanic eruptions can create colorful and dramatic displays, such as this eruption of this volcano in the Virunga Moutains of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Photograph by Chris Johns

A volcano is an opening in a planet or moon’s crust through which molten rock, hot gases, and other materials erupt . Volcanoes often form a hill or mountain as layers of rock and ash build up from repeated eruptions .

Volcanoes are classified as active, dormant, or extinct. Active volcanoes have a recent history of eruptions ; they are likely to erupt again. Dormant volcanoes have not erupted for a very long time but may erupt at a future time. Extinct volcanoes are not expected to erupt in the future.

Inside an active volcano is a chamber in which molten rock, called magma , collects. Pressure builds up inside the magma chamber, causing the magma to move through channels in the rock and escape onto the planet’s surface. Once it flows onto the surface the magma is known as lava .

Some volcanic eruptions are explosive, while others occur as a slow lava flow. Eruptions can occur through a main opening at the top of the volcano or through vents that form on the sides. The rate and intensity of eruptions, as well as the composition of the magma, determine the shape of the volcano.

Volcanoes are found on both land and the ocean floor. When volcanoes erupt on the ocean floor, they often create underwater mountains and mountain ranges as the released lava cools and hardens. Volcanoes on the ocean floor become islands when the mountains become so large they rise above the surface of the ocean.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Environment Go!

The Environment | Nature | Humans

23 Positive and Negative Effects of Volcanoes

In this article, I shall be writing about the positive and negative effects of volcanoes; every year there are tens of volcanic eruptions around the world and this affects humans, animals, plants, and every other thing in the earth’s ecosystem, therefore the impact of volcanoes can’t be overlooked.

A volcano is a geophysical and geochemical phenomenon that involves a violent rupture in the surface of a planet caused by the movement of tectonic plates within the planet’s crust or along ocean floors, this eruption causes hot lava, volcanic ash, and gases to escape from a magma chamber below the surface of the planet.

The term volcano is derived from the name of an ancient Roman god of fire; who bore the Latin name ‘ Vulcan ‘ and in this article, I shall be writing about the 23 positive and negative effects of volcanoes.

Table of Contents

There are many positive and negative effects of volcanoes on the environment , however, the effects of volcanic eruptions and volcanoes can be classified into two major types, they are:

• Negative effects of volcanoes
• Positive effects of volcanoes

17 Negative Effects of Volcanoes

These are the negative effects of volcanoes/volcanic eruptions on the environment:

Loss of Habitats

This is one of the major effects when there is a volcanic eruption, the heat from the eruption and the hot lava cause the destruction of the natural habitat of the species living around the area as it kills every living thing nearby.

The hot lava that flows out of the volcano flows for a long distance before cooling down to form solid rocks thereby taking over the natural habitat of some species and killing most of them in the process.

Causes Death to Wildlife

Volcanoes cause death to wildlife as floating lava and heat from volcanic eruptions kill many animals and plants whenever a volcanic eruption occurs, the ash that rises from the fire also leads to death for the animals around the area who inhale the poisonous gases it contains.

The biggest mass death of animals caused by a volcano was recorded when the Mount St. Helen volcano erupted in 1980 and killed an estimated total of 24,000 animals; over 45 percent of the animals that were killed were hares and about 25 percent were deers.

Causes Air Pollution

Air pollution is one of the major ways volcanoes and volcanic eruptions affect the environment; whenever there is an eruption, large amounts of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen, argon, methane, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, carbon monoxide, ash, and aerosols( tiny powder-like particles) are released into the atmosphere.

These substances contaminate the air and make it difficult for animals and humans to breathe as only a small quantity of oxygen will be in the atmosphere and some of the gases released are poisonous; all these factors contribute to the pollution of the air; air pollution is one of the biggest environmental problems in the world now.

Every year an estimated 271 million tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere, which is over 67.75 trillion moles of carbon dioxide molecules.

When volcanoes erupt, hot lava flows out of them, the fast-flowing lava can kill people especially those on its part. The gases and ash from volcanoes make the air unfit or poisonous to breathe thereby causing humans to choke to death, it can also kill humans through forest fires.

The biggest recorded death toll caused by a single volcano erupting is the volcano that erupted in Tambora, Indonesia, in 1815, killing around 92,000 people.

Sudden Weather Changes

Volcanoes; especially the major ones cause drastic and unexpected changes in the weather, they can cause rain, temporary hotness, thunder, lightning and can also have long-term effects on the climate of the area where they occur.

Can Cause Land Slides

Landslides are one of the major effects of volcanoes on the environment; when intense volcanic eruptions occur, they have the capability of causing landslides to occur in the area especially in areas where the ground has high slopes or many slopes.

There is a special kind of landslides that occur only on the slope of volcanos called Lahars; these landslides are powerful and don’t necessarily need a volcanic eruption to occur but can be set off by rainwater.

Affects Economy

In areas where there are volcanoes, whether active ones or not; most people are afraid to set up businesses in the area, also when a volcanic eruption occurs it destroys business establishments and affects many more others.

Causes Deforestation Through Forest fires

When volcanoes erupt the flowing hot lava sets fire to the forest areas around it, this fire if not controlled especially during the dry season can burn down a large expanse of forest thereby increasing the rate of deforestation.

Causes Food Scarcity

The hot lava that flows from volcanoes destroy farmlands thereby reducing food production which results in food scarcity, also after an eruption occurs, the plains around the volcano become very fertile and this attracts some farmers who come and set up their farms in the area only to get devastated at another occurrence.

Can Cause Extinction of Some Species

This is one of the dangerous effects of volcanoes, some of the species in the world are critically endangered and can be located only in a relatively small expanse of land. When hazards like volcanic eruptions occur in such areas, these species are very likely to go extinct.

Damages Properties

This is one of the biggest effects of volcanoes, the heat from the volcano and the hot lava damages or destroys everything on its part; whenever volcanic eruptions occur they cause damage to both private and public properties.

Causes Scarcity of Natural Resources

The lava from an erupted volcano causes forest fire which burns down the trees from which timber, paper. fruits and many other natural resources are gotten from, it also results in the death of wildlife animals, and this results also to the scarcity of bushmeat which is part of the natural resources on the earth.

Causes Diseases

The gases and ash from volcanoes can cause som many diseases including; lung cancer, different types of long-inflammatory diseases, and different kinds of eye problems among many other diseases which affect humans and animals too, it also causes some minor problems like causing itchy-noses.

Causes Water Pollution

One of the bizarre effects of volcanoes is that the ash and hot lava that emerge after an eruption settles on enter into water bodies like; streams, ponds, lakes, rivers, springs, etc. and pollute them; making them unfit for use by humans and animals alike.

Depletes Ozone Layer

The depletion of the ozone layer is one of the effects of volcanoes although they are responsible for about 2 percent of the ozone layer depletion.

When volcanoes erupt some gases escape into the stratosphere, these gases are not directly responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer but the gases that are made up of chlorine compounds undergo go chain reactions to release radicals of chlorine which then reacts with the ozone and destroys it.

Causes Land Pollution Through Acid Rain

When there is a volcanic eruption, so many gases escape from the volcano including sulphur dioxide which gets washed down by rainwater. When the rain washes down sulphur oxide the rain becomes acidic because sulphur oxide is an acid so this causes acid rain which makes the soil unhealthy for plant growth thereby causing land pollution.

Can Cause Tsunamis

Volcanoes can cause tsunamis, especially underwater volcanoes also known as submarine tsunamis; when underwater volcanoes erupt they displace large volumes of water and this sends wave ripples around the water bodies which may build up to cause tsunamis.

Land volcanoes can also cause tsunamis if they are located near water; when such volcanoes erupt, particles of rocks and large quantities of fast-flowing lava may get into the water bodies, these foreign materials displace the water and in the course of doing so send waves around the water body and this can cause a tsunami.

Can Cause Earthquakes

Some earthquakes occur as a result of the effects of volcanoes, such earthquakes are known as volcano-tectonic earthquakes; they are caused by movements and expansion of magmas beneath the earth’s surface, these movements cause pressure changes as they move about and melt more rocks; at some point, they cause the rocks to move or crash and this is exactly what causes the earthquakes.

6 Positive Effects of Volcanoes

These are the positive effects of volcanoes/volcanic eruptions on the environment:

Reduces Heat

One of the surprising effects of volcanoes is that they reduce heat and cool down the planet; this is because volcanic eruptions shoot up much of their gases and send the heat underground into the stratosphere thereby effectively cooling the biosphere.

The volcano eruption that occurred in Tambora, Indonesia, in 1815 is a good reference, it so much cooled the world to the extent that in some parts of the world, that year is dubbed ‘the year without summer’.

Increases Soil Fertility

This is one of the positive effects of volcanoes, despite the environmental pollution caused by volcanoes the role it plays in increasing soil fertility can’t be overlooked; when there is a volcanic eruption a lot of ashes are pushed into the atmosphere, this ashes when the finally settle down tremendously improve the fertility of the soil around the area.

Creates Safe Habitat for Some Animals

This is one of the good effects of volcanoes when there is a volcanic eruption the flowing lava later cools up to form solid rocks and this creates steep and dangerous slopes; the mount dwelling animals then build their nests and live high up the slopes where they will be out of reach for many predators and dangerous for humans.

Tourist Attraction

Whenever there is a volcanic eruption, so many people would love to go sightseeing in the area, therefore the volcano becomes a source or an object of tourist attraction that is of benefit to the host region or country.

Source of Energy

Volcanoes serve as a source of geothermal energy as electrical energy can be generated from geothermal energy in areas where magma lies close to the surface and such areas can be found around volcanos; this helps in increasing the use of renewable energy.

Increases Infiltration

This is one of the effects of volcanoes on the environment although it is rarely mentioned, when there is a volcanic eruption the vibration from the volcano makes the soil on the grounds in and around the area become looser thus helping increase the infiltration as water can easily penetrate such soil.

This is a comprehensive article about the positive and negative effects of volcanoes on the environment, it is good to note that some of these effects like the tectonic earthquakes do not need a volcanic eruption to occur but a volcano.

There are only 23 major positive and negative effects of volcanoes and volcanic eruptions; as regards the way it affects the environment, wildlife, and humanity.

Recommendations

• Types and Effect Of Erosion On The Environment .
• Top 5 Endangered Species in India .
• List Of Projects That Require EIA .
• Top 15 Endangered Species in the Philippines .
• Best 11 Environmentally Friendly Farming Methods .

Blessius Chibuike

• Top 10 Most Endangered Species in Canada
• Top 7 Most Endangered Species in Florida
• Top 10 Non-Government Organizations in The Philippines
• How to Start a Pig Farm Business | Step-by-Step Guide
• Uncategorized

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

• Air Pollution in Lagos – How Waste Disposal is Contributing
• Registered Environmental Professional (REP) Certification
• Building Certification and Environmental Sustainability
• 12 Major Causes of Habitat Loss
• Top 30 Longest-Living Dog Species

November 29, 1999

What Causes a Volcano to Erupt, and How Do Scientists Predict Eruptions?

Volcanologists cannot yet predict a volcanic eruption

By Attila Kilinc

Kilauea erupting.

Douglas Peebles Getty Images

Editor’s Note (6/4/18): This story is being re-posted in light of the deadly eruption of Guatemala’s Fuego volcano on Sunday (June 3), which covered nearby villages in fast-moving ash flows.

Attila Kilinc, head of the geology department at the University of Cincinnati, offers this answer. Most recently, Professor Kilinc has been studying volcanoes in Hawaii and Montserrat.

When a part of the earth's upper mantle or lower crust melts, magma forms. A volcano is essentially an opening or a vent through which this magma and the dissolved gases it contains are discharged. Although there are several factors triggering a volcanic eruption, three predominate: the buoyancy of the magma, the pressure from the exsolved gases in the magma and the injection of a new batch of magma into an already filled magma chamber. What follows is a brief description of these processes.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

As rock inside the earth melts, its mass remains the same while its volume increases--producing a melt that is less dense than the surrounding rock. This lighter magma then rises toward the surface by virtue of its buoyancy. If the density of the magma between the zone of its generation and the surface is less than that of the surrounding and overlying rocks, the magma reaches the surface and erupts.

Magmas of so-called andesitic and rhyolitic compositions also contain dissolved volatiles such as water, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Experiments have shown that the amount of a dissolved gas in magma (its solubility) at atmospheric pressure is zero, but rises with increasing pressure.

For example, in an andesitic magma saturated with water and six kilometers below the surface, about 5 percent of its weight is dissolved water. As this magma moves toward the surface, the solubility of the water in the magma decreases, and so the excess water separates from the magma in the form of bubbles. As the magma moves closer to the surface, more and more water exsolves from the magma, thereby increasing the gas/magma ratio in the conduit. When the volume of bubbles reaches about 75 percent, the magma disintegrates to pyroclasts (partially molten and solid fragments) and erupts explosively.

The third process that causes volcanic eruptions is an injection of new magma into a chamber that is already filled with magma of similar or different composition. This injection forces some of the magma in the chamber to move up in the conduit and erupt at the surface.

Although volcanologists are well aware of these three processes, they cannot yet predict a volcanic eruption. But they have made significant advances in forecasting volcanic eruptions. Forecasting involves probable character and time of an eruption in a monitored volcano. The character of an eruption is based on the prehistoric and historic record of the volcano in question and its volcanic products. For example, a violently erupting volcano that has produced ash fall, ash flow and volcanic mudflows (or lahars) is likely to do the same in the future.

Determining the timing of an eruption in a monitored volcano depends on measuring a number of parameters, including, but not limited to, seismic activity at the volcano (especially depth and frequency of volcanic earthquakes), ground deformations (determined using a tiltmeter and/or GPS, and satellite interferometry), and gas emissions (sampling the amount of sulfur dioxide gas emitted by correlation spectrometer, or COSPEC). An excellent example of successful forecasting occurred in 1991. Volcanologists from the U.S. Geological Survey accurately predicted the June 15 eruption of the Pinatubo Volcano in the Philippines, allowing for the timely evacuation of the Clark Air Base and saving thousands of lives.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Digg
•   Reddit
•   Pinterest
•   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Chat Share Social Media  

What are some benefits of volcanic eruptions?

Over geologic time, volcanic eruptions and related processes have directly and indirectly benefited mankind:

• Volcanic materials ultimately break down and weather to form some of the most fertile soils on Earth, cultivation of which has produced abundant food and fostered civilizations.
• The internal heat associated with young volcanic systems has been harnessed to produce  geothermal energy .
• Most of the metallic minerals mined in the world--such as copper, gold, silver, lead, and zinc--are associated with magmas found deep within the roots of extinct volcanoes.

Related Content

• Publications

Does the USGS have reports on the background levels of elements in soils and other surficial materials?

The following USGS products will be helpful in determining the background levels of various elements in soils and other surficial materials: Geochemical and Mineralogical Data for Soils of the Conterminous United States (2013) Data for samples collected at three intervals (0-5 cm surficial soils, A-Horizon soils, and C-Horizon soils) across the entire conterminous U.S. These data provide the best...

Where can I obtain soil surveys?

A soil survey is the systematic description, classification, and mapping of soils in an area. They are published by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) , formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service. NRCS soil surveys are available from several sources: Some are on the NRCS website . Published soil surveys can be found at some libraries or borrowed through interlibrary loan...

How much gold has been found in the world?

About 244,000 metric tons of gold has been discovered to date (187,000 metric tons historically produced plus current underground reserves of 57,000 metric tons). Most of that gold has come from just three countries: China, Australia, and South Africa. The United States ranked fourth in gold production in 2016. All of the gold discovered thus far would fit in a cube that is 23 meters wide on every...

How much silver has been found in the world?

Of the 1,740,000 metric tons of silver discovered to date, 55% is found in just four countries on earth. All the silver discovered thus far would fit in a cube 55 meters on a side. Learn more: USGS commodity website for silver

How much copper has been found in the world?

To date, roughly 700 million metric tons of copper have been produced around the world. This would fit into a cube measuring about 430 meters on a side. Identified deposits contain an estimated 2.1 billion metric tons of additional copper, which brings the total amount of discovered copper to 2.8 billion metric tons. This would fit into a cube measuring 680 meters on a side. It is also estimated...

How do we extract minerals?

The primary methods used to extract minerals from the ground are: Underground mining Surface (open pit) mining Placer mining The location and shape of the deposit, strength of the rock, ore grade, mining costs, and current market price of the commodity are some of the determining factors for selecting which mining method to use. Higher-grade metallic ores found in veins deep under the Earth’s...

How much of the Earth is volcanic?

More than 80 percent of the Earth's surface--above and below sea level--is of volcanic origin. Gaseous emissions from volcanic vents over hundreds of millions of years formed the Earth's earliest oceans and atmosphere, which supplied the ingredients vital to evolve and sustain life. Over geologic eons, countless volcanic eruptions have produced mountains, plateaus, and plains, which subsequently...

How many active volcanoes are there on Earth?

There are about 1,350 potentially active volcanoes worldwide, aside from the continuous belts of volcanoes on the ocean floor at spreading centers like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge . About 500 of those 1,350 volcanoes have erupted in historical time. Many of those are located along the Pacific Rim in what is known as the " Ring of Fire ." In the United States, volcanoes in the Cascade Range and Alaska...

Native Gold

A sample of native gold. Gold has been treasured since ancient times for its beauty and permanence.   Most of the gold that is fabricated today goes into the manufacture of jewelry, but it also performs critical functions in computers, communications equipment, spacecraft, jet aircraft engines, and a host of other products.

Geothermal Plant

A geothermal power plant at The Geysers near Santa Rosa, California. The USGS researches and assesses geothermal resources.

Native copper. The USGS studies processes that form copper deposits and reports global production and consumption.

It begins with curiosity—How do scientists learn from volcanoes?

Geothermal energy: clean power from the earth's heat, benefits of volcano monitoring far outweigh costs - the case of mount pinatubo, volcanoes and usgs volcano science: just the facts.

Volcanoes are an incredible feature of Earth’s geologic environment – at once awe-inspiring and terrifying. They remind us that the planet we call...

Magmas to Metals

No one wants to have an active volcano in their backyard (just ask Dionisio Pulido), but ancient eroded volcanoes can sometimes be literal goldmines...

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

What Causes a Volcano to Erupt?

Volcanic eruptions are among the most stunning phenomena in the natural world. Volcanoes erupt because of the way  heat  moves beneath  Earth ’s surface. Heat is conveyed from the planet’s interior to its surface largely by  convection —the transfer of heat by movement of a heated fluid. In this case, the fluid is magma —molten or partially molten rock —which is formed by the partial melting of Earth's mantle and crust. The magma rises, and, in the last step in this heat-releasing process, erupts at the surface through volcanoes.

Most volcanoes are associated with  plate tectonic activity. For example, volcanoes of  Japan ,  Iceland ,  Indonesia , and numerous other places occur on the margins of the massive solid rocky plates that make up Earth’s surface. When one plate slides under another, water trapped in the subducted, sinking plate is squeezed out of it by enormous pressure, which produces enough heat to melt nearby rock, forming magma. Since the magma is more buoyant than the surrounding rock, it rises, and it may collect in chambers nearer to the surface. As a chamber fills up, the pressure inside may increase. When the downward pressure produced by the weight of rock above the chamber is less than the upward pressure produced by rock below the chamber, cracks often form above. Eventually the upward pressure may push the magma through the cracks and out of vents at the surface, where it becomes  lava . In fact, strictly speaking, the term  volcano  refers to just such a vent, although it can also refer to the landform created by the accumulation of solidified lava and volcanic debris near the vent.

Far from tectonic plate boundaries, a smaller number of volcanoes occur at hotspots , where rising magma melts through the crust. The volcanoes of  Hawaii  are good examples of hotspot volcanoes.

The Geographic and Geological Significance of Mount St. Helens

This essay is about Mount St. Helens an active stratovolcano located in Washington State USA within the Cascade Range. It discusses the mountain’s geographical position its significant 1980 eruption and its role in shaping the regional ecosystem and geology. The essay highlights the scientific research and monitoring efforts around Mount St. Helens particularly by the United States Geological Survey and the ongoing ecological recovery observed in the area. Additionally it touches on the cultural and historical significance of the mountain noting its importance in Native American traditions and its impact on public consciousness regarding natural hazards and environmental change.

How it works

One of the most well-known and extensively researched volcanic mountains in the country is Mount St. Helens an active stratovolcano in the state of Washington. Mount St. Helens is 96 miles south of Seattle and 50 miles northeast of Portland Oregon in the Pacific Northwest. It is part of the Cascade Range. 46.2 degrees north latitude and 122.2 degrees west longitude are its exact geographic coordinates. The mountain is a component of the Pacific Ring of Fire’s Cascade Volcanic Arc which is well-known for its many volcanoes and intense tectonic activity.

Volcanic activity on Mount St. Helens has been intense throughout its history; the most significant eruption took place on May 18 1980. This disastrous event completely changed the environment wreaking havoc and sparking intense scientific curiosity. A sequence of earthquakes and steam venting episodes preceded the eruption which resulted in a large-scale landslide and a lateral blast that lowered the summit of the mountain from 9677 feet to 8363 feet. The eruption was the bloodiest and most economically damaging volcanic event in American history ejecting around one cubic mile of material and leaving 57 people dead.

Mount St. Helens’ position in the Cascade Range is noteworthy due to its volcanic activity as well as its influence on the geology and ecosystem of the surrounding area. Numerous more volcanoes including Mount Rainier Mount Hood and Mount Adams can be found in the Cascade Range which stretches from northern California through Oregon Washington and the Canadian border. The Juan de Fuca Plate is thrust beneath the North American Plate during subduction processes resulting in the formation of this mountain range. The high frequency of volcanic activity in the area is caused by this tectonic interaction which has significant effects on both human communities and the ecosystem.

Additionally Mount St. Helens serves as a hub for scientific observation and study. A strong network of seismic and geodetic equipment is maintained by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and other organizations around the volcano to monitor its activity and provide early warnings of possible eruptions. We now have a far better understanding of volcanic processes eruption forecasting and hazard mitigation because to this research. With so much research done on the 1980 eruption in particular important insights into the behavior of explosive volcanoes and the effects of volcanic eruptions on the environment have been gained.

The area around Mount St. Helens is a component of the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument which was created in 1982 with the goals of protecting the distinctive environment and promoting recreation and scientific research. Over 110000 acres make up the monument which provides chances for trekking camping and seeing the continuous geological changes and ecological recovery. For scientists the region is a living laboratory and for tourists interested in geology ecology and natural history it offers an intriguing destination.

There has been a lot of research and interest in the ecological recovery of Mount St. Helens’ landscape after the 1980 explosion. Although the area was initially blanketed in ash and appeared desolate plant and animal life have gradually reappeared over the years. The ecological succession process has shed important light on the adaptability and resilience of ecosystems. Scientists have seen the emergence of more complex plant and animal communities after pioneer species colonized the region. This comeback demonstrates how dynamic and renewably volcanic landscapes can be.

Notable is also Mount St. Helens’ cultural and historical significance. The local Native American tribes have revered the mountain for a long time and it has a special position in their customs and tales. The 1980 eruption and its fallout have shaped literature art and public awareness of environmental change and natural hazards becoming ingrained in a wider cultural memory.

In conclusion Mount St. Helens is a site of great geological ecological and cultural value because of its position in the Cascade Range and its history of volcanic activity. In the field of volcanology its 1980 eruption is still regarded as a seminal event because it shed light on the dynamics of violent volcanic eruptions and their effects. The relevance of Mount St. Helens as a natural laboratory and a representation of the strong forces that affect our world is highlighted by the ongoing scientific investigation ecological recovery and public interest in the mountain. Because of this it is still an important area of study and a fascinating travel destination for people who want to comprehend and enjoy the beauties of nature.

Cite this page

The Geographic and Geological Significance of Mount St. Helens. (2024, Jul 06). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-geographic-and-geological-significance-of-mount-st-helens/

"The Geographic and Geological Significance of Mount St. Helens." PapersOwl.com , 6 Jul 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-geographic-and-geological-significance-of-mount-st-helens/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Geographic and Geological Significance of Mount St. Helens . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-geographic-and-geological-significance-of-mount-st-helens/ [Accessed: 11 Jul. 2024]

"The Geographic and Geological Significance of Mount St. Helens." PapersOwl.com, Jul 06, 2024. Accessed July 11, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-geographic-and-geological-significance-of-mount-st-helens/

"The Geographic and Geological Significance of Mount St. Helens," PapersOwl.com , 06-Jul-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-geographic-and-geological-significance-of-mount-st-helens/. [Accessed: 11-Jul-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Geographic and Geological Significance of Mount St. Helens . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-geographic-and-geological-significance-of-mount-st-helens/ [Accessed: 11-Jul-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Earth Science

Volcano Eruption

Volcanoes are ruptures in the crust of our planet Earth that allow hot gases, molten lava and some rock fragments to erupt by opening and exposing the magma inside. In this piece of article, we will be discussing how and why volcanoes erupt.

How Do Volcanoes Erupt?

It is so hot deep within the earth that some rocks slowly melt and turn into a thick flowing matter known as magma. Since it is lighter than solid rock, the magma rises and collects in magma chambers. Eventually, some magma pushes through fissures and vents on the earth’s surface. Hence, a volcanic eruption occurs, and the erupted magma is known as lava.

We need to understand the Earth’s structure to know how volcanoes erupt. At the top lies the lithosphere, the outermost layer that consists of the upper crust and mantle. The thickness of the crust ranges from 10km to 100km in mountainous locations and mainly consists of silicate rock.

See the video below to know more about the causes of volcanic eruptions.

Why Do Volcanoes Erupt?

The Earth’s mantle within the crust is classified into different sections depending on individual seismology. These include the upper mantle, which ranges between 8 – 35 km to 410 km; the transition zone ranges from 400 to 660 km; the lower mantle lies between 660 – 2891 km.

The conditions change dramatically from the crust to the mantle location. The pressures rise drastically and temperatures rise up to 1000 o C. This viscous and molten rock gets collected into large chambers within the Earth’s crust.

Since magma is lighter than surrounding rock, it floats up towards the surface and seeks out cracks and weakness in the mantle. It finally explodes from the peak point of a volcano after reaching the surface. When it is under the surface, the melted rock is known as magma and erupts as ash when comes up.

Rocks, lava and ash are built across the volcanic vent with every eruption. The nature of the eruption mainly depends on the viscosity of the magma. The lava travels far and generates broad shield volcanoes when it flows easily. When it is too thick, it makes a familiar cone volcano shape. If the lava is extremely thick, it can build up in the volcano and explode, known as lava domes.

Causes of Volcanic Eruption

We know that the mantle of the Earth is too hot, and the temperature ranges from 1000° Celsius to 3000° Celsius. The rocks present inside melt due to high pressure and temperature. The melted substance is light in weight. This thin lava comes up to the crust since it can float easily. Since the density of the magma between the area of its creation and the crust is less than the enclosed rocks, the magma gets to the surface and bursts. The magma is composed of andesitic and rhyolitic components along with water, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide in dissolved form. By forming bubbles, excess water is broken up with magma. When the magma comes closer to the surface, the level of water decreases and the gas/magma rises in the channel. When the volume of the bubbles formed is about 75%, the magma breaks into pyroclasts and bursts out. The three main causes of volcanic eruptions are: The buoyancy of the magma Pressure from the exsolved gases in the magma Increase in pressure on the chamber lid Hope you are familiar with why volcanoes erupt and the cause of the volcanic eruption. Stay tuned to BYJU’S to learn about types of volcanoes, igneous rocks, and much more.

Frequently Asked Questions – FAQs

What is lava.

When a volcanic eruption occurs, the erupted magma is known as lava.

State true or false: The nature of the eruption mainly depends on the viscosity of the magma.

What are the causes of volcanic eruption.

The causes of the volcanic eruption are:

• The buoyancy of the magma
• Pressure from the dissolved gases in the magma
• Increase in pressure on the chamber lid

Define magma.

How is earth’s mantle classified.

• The upper mantle – ranges between 8 – 35 km to 410 km
• Transition zone ranges from 400 to 660 km
• Lower mantle lies between 660 – 2891 km

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz

Visit BYJU’S for all Physics related queries and study materials

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Growth & Development
• Play & Activities
• Life Skills
• Play & Learning
• Learning & Education
• Rhymes & Songs
• Preschool Locator

Essay On The Volcano – 10 Lines, Short & Long Essay For Kids

Key Points To Remember When Writing An Essay On The Volcano For Lower Primary Classes

10 lines on the volcano for kids, a paragraph on the volcano for children, short essay on volcano in 200 words for kids, long essay on volcano for children, interesting facts about volcanoes for children, what will your child learn from this essay.

A volcano is a mountain formed through an opening on the Earth’s surface and pushes out lava and rock fragments through that. It is a conical mass that grows large and is found in different sizes. Volcanoes in Hawaiian islands are more than 4000 meters above sea level, and sometimes the total height of a volcano may exceed 9000 meters, depending on the region it is found. Here you will know and learn how to write an essay on a volcano for classes 1, 2 & 3 kids. We will cover writing tips for your essay on a volcano in English and some fun facts about volcanoes in general.

Volcanoes are formed as a result of natural phenomena on the Earth’s surface. There are several types of volcanoes, and each may emit multiple gases. Below are some key points to remember when writing an essay on a volcano:

• Start with an introduction about how volcanoes are formed. How they impact the Earth, what they produce, and things to watch out for.
• Discuss the different types of volcanoes and talk about the differences between them.
• Cover the consequences when volcanoes erupt and the extent of the damage on Earth.
• Write a conclusion paragraph for your essay and summarise it. 

When writing a few lines on a volcano, it’s crucial to state interesting facts that children will remember. Below are 10 lines on volcanoes for an essay for classes 1 & 2 kids.

• Some volcanoes erupt in explosions, and then some release magma quietly.
• Lava is hot and molten red in colour and cools down to become black in colour. 
• Hot gases trapped inside the Earth are released when a volcano erupts.
• A circle of volcanoes is referred to as the ‘Ring of Fire.’
• Volcano formations are known as seismic activities.
• Active volcanoes are spread all across the earth. 
• Volcanoes can remain inactive for thousands of years and suddenly erupt.
• Most volcanic eruptions occur underwater and result from plates diverging from the margins.
• Volcanic hazards happen in the form of ashes, lava flows, ballistics, etc.
• Volcanic regions have turned into tourist attractions such as the ones in Hawaii.

Volcanoes can be spotted at the meeting points of tectonic plates. Like this, there are tons of interesting facts your kids can learn about volcanoes. Here is a short paragraph on a volcano for children:

A volcano can be defined as an opening in a planet through which lava, gases, and molten rock come out. Earthquake activity around a volcano can give plenty of insight into when it will erupt. The liquid inside a volcano is called magma (lava), which can harden. The Roman word for the volcano is ‘vulcan,’ which means God of Fire. Earth is not the only planet in the solar system with volcanoes; there is one on Mars called the Olympus Mons. There are mainly three types of volcanoes: active, dormant, and extinct. Some eruptions are explosive, and some happen as slow-flowing lava.

Small changes occur in volcanoes, determining if the magma is rising or not flowing enough. One of the common ways to forecast eruptions is by analysing the summit and slopes of these formations. Below is a short essay for classes 1, 2, & 3:

As a student, I have always been curious about volcanoes, and I recently studied a lot about them. Do you know? Krakatoa is a volcano that made an enormous sound when it exploded. Maleo birds seek refuge in the soil found near volcanoes, and they also bury their eggs in these lands as it keeps the eggs warm. Lava salt is a popular condiment used for cooking and extracted from volcanic rocks. And it is famous for its health benefits and is considered superior to other forms of rock or sea salts. Changes in natural gas composition in volcanoes can predict how explosive an eruption can be. A volcano is labelled active if it constantly generates seismic activity and releases magma, and it is considered dormant if it has not exploded for a long time. Gas bubbles can form inside volcanoes and blow up to 1000 times their original size!

Volcanic eruptions can happen through small cracks on the Earth’s surface, fissures, and new landforms. Poisonous gases and debris get mixed with the lava released during these explosions. Here is a long essay for class 3 kids on volcanoes:

Lava can come in different forms, and this is what makes volcanoes unique. Volcanic eruptions can be dangerous and may lead to loss of life, damaging the environment. Lava ejected from a volcano can be fluid, viscous, and may take up different shapes. 

When pressure builds up below the Earth’s crust due to natural gases accumulating, that’s when a volcanic explosion happens. Lava and rocks are shot out from the surface to make room on the seafloor. Volcanic eruptions can lead to landslides, ash formations, and lava flows, called natural disasters. Active volcanoes frequently erupt, while the dormant ones are unpredictable. Thousands of years can pass until dormant volcanoes erupt, making their eruption unpredictable. Extinct volcanoes are those that have never erupted in history.

The Earth is not the only planet in the solar system with volcanoes. Many volcanoes exist on several other planets, such as Mars, Venus, etc. Venus is the one planet with the most volcanoes in our solar system. Extremely high temperatures and pressure cause rocks in the volcano to melt and become liquid. This is referred to as magma, and when magma reaches the Earth’s surface, it gets called lava. On Earth, seafloors and common mountains were born from volcanic eruptions in the past.

What Is A Volcano And How Is It Formed?

A volcano is an opening on the Earth’s crust from where molten lava, rocks, and natural gases come out. It is formed when tectonic plates shift or when the ocean plate sinks. Volcano shapes are formed when molten rock, ash, and lava are released from the Earth’s surface and solidify.

Types Of Volcanoes

Given below various types of volcanoes –

1. Shield Volcano

It has gentle sliding slopes and ejects basaltic lava. These are created by the low-viscosity lava eruption that can reach a great distance from a vent.

2. Composite Volcano (Strato)

A composite volcano can stand thousands of meters tall and feature mudflow and pyroclastic deposits.

3. Caldera Volcano

When a volcano explodes and collapses, a large depression is formed, which is called the Caldera.

4. Cinder Cone Volcano

It’s a steep conical hill formed from hardened lava, tephra, and ash deposits.

Causes Of Volcano Eruptions

Following are the most common causes of volcano eruptions:

1. Shifting Of Tectonic Plates

When tectonic plates slide below one another, water is trapped, and pressure builds up by squeezing the plates. This produces enough heat, and gases rise in the chambers, leading to an explosion from underwater to the surface.

2. Environmental Conditions

Sometimes drastic changes in natural environments can lead to volcanoes becoming active again.

3. Natural Phenomena

We all understand that the Earth’s mantle is very hot. So, the rock present in it melts due to high temperature. This thin lava travels to the crust as it can float easily. As the area’s density is compromised, the magma gets to the surface and explodes.

How Does Volcano Affect Human Life?

Active volcanoes threaten human life since they often erupt and affect the environment. It forces people to migrate far away as the amount of heat and poisonous gases it emits cannot be tolerated by humans.

Here are some interesting facts:

• The lava is extremely hot!
• The liquid inside a volcano is known as magma. The liquid outside is called it is lava.
• The largest volcano in the solar system is found on Mars.
• Mauna Loa in Hawaii is the largest volcano on Earth.
• Volcanoes are found where tectonic plates meet and move.

Your child will learn a lot about how Earth works and why volcanoes are classified as natural disasters, what are their types and how they are formed.

Now that you know enough about volcanoes, you can start writing the essay. For more information on volcanoes, be sure to read and explore more.

Tsunami Essay for Kids Essay on Earthquake in English for Children How to Write An Essay On Environmental Pollution for Kids

• Essays for Class 1
• Essays for Class 2
• Essays for Class 3

13 Helpful Tips to Get Your Child to Listen to You

How to build a healthy relationship with food for your child, why playing alone is recommend for kids, leave a reply cancel reply.

Log in to leave a comment

Most Popular

9 books that celebrate super dads, recent comments.

FirstCry Intelli Education is an Early Learning brand, with products and services designed by educators with decades of experience, to equip children with skills that will help them succeed in the world of tomorrow.

The FirstCry Intellikit `Learn With Stories` kits for ages 2-6 brings home classic children`s stories, as well as fun activities, specially created by our Early Learning Educators.

For children 6 years and up, explore a world of STEAM learning, while engaging in project-based play to keep growing minds busy!

Build a love for reading through engaging book sets and get the latest in brain-boosting toys, recommended by the educators at FirstCry Intellitots.

Our Comprehensive 2-year Baby Brain Development Program brings to you doctor-approved toys for your baby`s developing brain.

Our Preschool Chain offers the best in education across India, for children ages 2 and up.

©2024 All rights reserved

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Welcome to the world of Intelli!

We have some FREE Activity E-books waiting for you. Fill in your details below so we can send you tailor- made activities for you and your little one.

Parent/Guardian's Name

Child's DOB

What would you like to receive other than your Free E-book? I would like information, discounts and offers on toys, books and products I want to find a FirstCry Intellitots Preschool near me I want access to resources for my child's development and/or education

Welcome to the world of intelli!

FREE guides and worksheets coming your way on whatsapp. Subscribe Below !!

THANK YOU!!!

Here are your free guides and worksheets.

We Are the Writing Experts

Essay writing on demand. Just give us the word.

About: Causes and Effects of volcanic eruption

Introduction

It is already known that volcanic eruption can cause cooling effects on earth by throwing sulfuric acid droplets and ash particles into the atmosphere that eventually block sunlight. Volcanic eruption ejects sulfur dioxide gas into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide mixed with water resulting into sulfuric acid haze thus forming volcanic winter that reflect and block incoming sunlight. This causes cooling effect in the earth. Now research also has unfolded that the reverse is true. It is evident that volcano eruption can cause increased in global temperature that eventually cause global warming. Volcanoes can cause the global climate over several years, though it must be accompanied by volcanic eruption of sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere. This paper aims to examine how huge volcanic eruptions can cause impact of short-term climatic cooling. The paper also studies effects of volcanic eruption on environment and how prevalent volcanism may lead to global warming.

Effects of volcanic eruption on environment

Volcanic eruptions cause many threats to million of people across the world.  In the current world, there is an estimate of 500 active mountains on earth (Brown, 2001). Annually, there are about 11 to 39 volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions cause dangerous impacts on health, climate and environment. Such impacts are hazardous to human survival and are detrimental to economic and social conditions. Harmful gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen chloride, hot steam and magma, and other organic compounds.  Their harmful impacts depend on the distance from which volcanoes are located, gas concentration as well as magma viscosity. Others perils include mud flow, toxicant volcanic dust particles, hot stream and poisonous gases.

Problems associated with these hazards include respiratory problems, death, injuries, skin and eye problems, destruction of communication and transport network, psychological effects, power outage, destruction of buildings, sewage disposal problem, water supply system disruption, and human displacement. Other negative impacts include crop damage, climate change, lack of rainfall, unsafe and water quality. Impacts of volcanic eruptions are dangerous because they cause total destruction. Unfavorable health impacts can be partialiy prevented by applying safety measures in a timely manner.

Huge volcanic eruption can cause short-term climatic cooling

During 15th June 1991 there was volcanic eruption at Mount Pinatubo in Philippines. An approximated 25 million tons of ash and sulfur particles were blown into the atmosphere.    Eruptions trigger widespread damage and many people lost their lives. Solid and gases particles blasted into the stratosphere move around the world for about three weeks. Volcanic eruptions have effect on global climate, minimizing the quantity of solar radiation that reaches the surface of the earth, reducing temperature in the atmosphere, and altering the circulations of the atmospheric patterns.  Large scale volcanic events may occur for some few days, but the massive outpouring of ash and gases particles can affect climate patterns for several years (Cavendish, 2005). Sulfuric gases are changed into sulfate aerosols that contain an estimate of 75% of sulfuric acid. Volcanic eruption can cause climatic impact on the earth both for long and short term. For instance, Mount Pinatubo erupted during 1991 and caused reduction of average global temperature for about two and half years.

Cold temperature had negative impact in Europe and North America when Mount Tambora erupted during 1815. This eruption caused famine and crop failure. Volcanologists hold a belief that balance of mild climate in the world for several million years is maintained by occurrence of the continuous volcanic eruptions (Withers, 2007). Volcanoes have impact on climate because dust and gases particles are blasted into the atmosphere whenever volcanic eruption occurs. The impact of the volcanic dusts and gases may cause cooling or warming the surface of the earth. This depends on the manner in which sunlight react with the volcanic gases and dusts.

James (2007) presents that volcanic dust erupted into the atmosphere have effect of causing cooling on temporary basis. The quantity of cooling relies on the quantity of the dust particles into the air. The duration in which cooling take place relies on the quantity of the dust particles. Particles thrown in the air and remain close to the mountain; such particles do not have big impact on the climate. Tiny ash-dust particles blasted into the atmosphere remain there for some days and cause cooling and darkness under the ash cloud. Rain and water available in the lower atmosphere rapidly wash away the tiny ash-dusts. Nevertheless, dusts thrown into the upper dry part of the atmosphere can stay there for several weeks or months before eventually washed away. Such dusts normally cause cooling and block sunlight from reaching parts of the world.

Volcanic eruption causes release of huge quantity of sulfur compounds such as sulfur dioxide or sulfur oxide  have stronger impact on climate than dusts ejected into the atmosphere. Sulfuric compounds are made of gases which easily move into stratosphere (upper dry part of atmosphere). Once sulfuric compounds are in stratosphere, they mix with available water to make up sulfuric acid that is visible as tiny droplets (Wilson and Drury, 2000). Such tiny droplets are small light particles that reflect sunlight and eventually grow bigger. Though the droplet become large and fall in the earth, it takes time for example several years or months for the droplets fall due to the dry impact of the stratosphere. Cooling impact can be caused by sulfur droplets; this effect may happen after two years from the time eruption took place. Sulfur hazes are known to cause global cooling effect which happened when mount Tambora and Pinatubo erupted. A satellite traced, after several months, the presence of the sulfur that Pinatubo produced. This is a continuous group of haze that surrounds the whole globe.

During 1 st January 2008, Llaima volcano erupted sulfuric hazes (sulfuric dioxide) into the atmosphere and caused cooling effect after several months. This eruption caused smoke (volcanic ash) skyward. However, there was no damage or injuries claimed. The eruption caused tourists to evacuate the volcano’s base. Volcano Llaima released cloud of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. At first the cloud of sulfuric acid moved from one place to another while growing to become bigger. According to Cavendish (2005), the image of this cloud was red that showed that sulfuric acid was concentrated. Sulfuric dioxides, which were erupted from the volcano mountain, mixed with water and eventually developed sulfuric acid hazes. Sunlight was reflected away from earth by this haze whose impact caused a cooling effect on surface of the earth. The magnitude of eruption at Mount Pinatubo was greater than Llaima, but both eruptions released clouds of sulfuric dioxides that combined with water to form sulfuric acid which caused cooling impact on climate. While volcanic dusts and particles released on the lower part of the atmosphere are washed away within fewer days due to impacts of gravity and rainfall, volcanic dusts thrown into the stratosphere may stay there for many years and slowly spread over the globe.

Widespread volcanic eruption cause global warming

Volcanic eruptions have potential of affecting global climate for long time period. Increased volcanic eruptions can release large amount of greenhouse gases that may cause global warming (Milne, 2002). Nevertheless, the cooling effect caused by sulfuric dioxide may counter the effect of the greenhouse warming. The resulting climate change is unpredictable. This will depend on the kind of volcanic activity. Volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than amount that human beings produce. Immense volcanic eruption happened in a place known as the (CAMP) Central Atlantic Magmatic Province ejected large quantity of gases and lava such as methane, sulfur, and carbon dioxide.

This sudden rise of gases and dusts into the atmosphere increase global warming as well as acidification in water bodies like oceans that killed many animals and plants (Gunn, 2001). Volcanic eruptions have caused increased emission of gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Since 2000, 17 volcanic eruptions have taken place including Merapi (Indonesia) , Kasatochi (Alaska) , Nabco (Eritrea) and others have ejected sulfur that have caused cooling  effect, though climate  scientists largely ignored these effects for several times until they performed thorough investigation to  verify their  findings. Volcanic eruptions cannot be predicted but when they happen they block global sunshine for several years. Volcanic eruptions account for 15 percent global warming. Temperature increase happens due to emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Formation of HCI (halide acid) has effect of destroying ozone layer. When it is formed, halide acid reacts with ozone though some of them are washed away by rain. Satellite data showed that about 15 percent ozone was lost when mount Hudson and Mount Pinatubo erupted.  It is evident that volcanic eruption contributes an influential role in minimizing ozone layer. Nevertheless, this as an indirect role and it cannot be explained that volcanic HCI directly cause reduction of ozone levels. Brown (2001) says that eruption particle known as aerosols is attributed to offer surface upon which chemical reaction occur. Though volcanic aerosols offer a catalytic ground for ozone depletion, major cause of ozone destruction are CFCs that are produced by human activities. Climate scientists predict that ozone levels recover because United Nations has restricted chemicals such as volcanic HCI, CFCs and others from destroying ozone. Nevertheless, volcanic eruption talking place in the future will interfere with the recovery process of ozone levels. Depletion of ozone causes global warming. Through this process it can be justified how volcanic eruption cause global warming.

Relationship between global warming and cooling effect

Volcanic eruption can increase global warming by producing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, greater quantity of carbon dioxide is produced into the atmosphere due to human activities taking place annually than through volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruption produces greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that cause global warming. Global warming effect caused by volcanic eruption has greater impact than the cooling effect caused erupted dusts in the stratosphere. However, it is explained the cooling effect helps to reduce global warming. Greenhouse warming was noticed as a threat to the earth since 1980. Cooling effect caused by volcanic eruption that took place at Mount Pinatubo (1991) and Mount El Chichon (1982) played a crucial role of reducing global warming. Without these cooling effects, global warming could have been more profound.

Volcanic eruption increase the haze effect more than greenhouse effect so that to reduce average global temperature. Milne (2002) views that many years back, scientists believe that volcanic eruption caused the haze effect as a result of suspended dust particles in the stratosphere that would block sunlight. Nevertheless, this perception was later changed during 1982 when El Chichon (Mexico volcano) erupted. During 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted and reduced global temperature by about 0.1C. El Chichon erupted and further reduced global temperature by five times lower. Mount St. Helens ejected more quantity of ash particles in the stratosphere. El Chichon ejected large amount of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere. Sulfur mixed with water form cloud droplets of sulfuric acid. Such droplets accumulate in size for many several years and they are able to reduce temperature by absorbing sunlight radiation and reflect it back to the universe or space.

Volcanic eruption can cause three climate effects such as ozone depletion, cooling effect and global warming. Eruptions release dusts and particles that block sunlight and therefore causing short term cooling effect on earth. The particles may remain in the atmosphere for several years. Eruption also may release carbon dioxide that can stay in the atmosphere for several years. The impact of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes greenhouse effect that triggers global warming. These two phenomena are not major ways in which climate change is caused, but they have great impact on climate.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Post

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 09 July 2024

Explosive eruption style modulates volcanic electrification signals

• Caron E. J. Vossen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7090-1857 1 ,
• Corrado Cimarelli   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5707-5930 1 ,
• Luca D’Auria 2 , 3 ,
• Valeria Cigala 1 ,
• Ulrich Kueppers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2815-1444 1 ,
• José Barrancos 2 , 3 &
• Alec J. Bennett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8895-6418 4 , 5  

Communications Earth & Environment volume  5 , Article number:  367 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Atmospheric chemistry
• Natural hazards
• Volcanology

Volcanic lightning detection has proven useful to volcano monitoring by providing information on eruption onset, source parameters, and ash cloud directions. However, little is known about the influence of changing eruptive styles on the generation of charge and electrical discharges inside the eruption column. The 2021 Tajogaite eruption (La Palma, Canary Islands) provided the rare opportunity to monitor variations in electrical activity continuously over several weeks using an electrostatic lightning detector. Here we show that throughout the eruption, silicate particle charging is the main electrification mechanism. Moreover, we find that the type of electrical activity is closely linked to the explosive eruption style. Fluctuations in the electrical discharge rates are likely controlled by variations in the mass eruption rate and/or changes in the eruption style. These findings hold promise for obtaining near real-time information on the dynamic evolution of explosive volcanic activity through electrostatic monitoring in the future.

Similar content being viewed by others

The electrical signature of mafic explosive eruptions at Stromboli volcano, Italy

Observations of lightning in relation to transitions in volcanic activity during the 3 June 2018 Fuego Eruption

The build-up and triggers of volcanic eruptions

Introduction.

On 19 September 2021 at 14:10 UTC, an eruption started from a fissure on the Western flank of the Cumbre Vieja volcanic ridge on La Palma (Canary Islands), 50 years after the last eruption in 1971 1 . For almost three months, several vents along a NW-SE aligned fissure (Fig.  1 ) erupted lava and tephra of basanite to tephrite composition 2 , 3 . The eruption resulted in a 12 km 2 compound A ā and Pāhoehoe lava flow field 4 , which destroyed entire villages, infrastructure, and plantations, and formed a 187 m tall scoria cone (1071.2 m above sea level) later named Volcán de Tajogaite 5 . The eruption ended on 13 December 2021. Throughout the eruption, the explosive activity varied on the order of hours to days, ranging between mild to strong ash emissions, gas jetting, Strombolian activity, and lava fountaining 6 , 7 . On many occasions, volcanic lightning was observed. Note that there is some debate about how to classify the different eruption styles during this eruption due to the high variability in activity without clear boundaries between one activity and another 8 . The nomenclature used in this study is following Romero et al. 7 .

Google Earth satellite images (Imagery date: 7/7/2019 – newer. Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO. http://www.earth.google.com [24 October 2023]) a La Palma, Canary Islands (Spain), showing the location of Volcán de Tajogaite (red circle), seismic station PLPI (white triangle) and Roque de los Muchachos observatory (blue square). b The 2021 Tajogaite lava flow field (red shaded area; data from the European agency Copernicus Emergency Management Service, https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/list-of-components/EMSR546 [24 October 2023]) is shown together with the location of the Biral Thunderstorm Detector (installed from 11-26 October at location BTD1 and relocated to location BTD2 on 27 October, white stars), the thermal camera (white square), the active vents (red circles) and nearby villages (blue circles).

Volcanic lightning is frequently observed during ash-rich explosive eruptions. It is interpreted as a result of electrification and charge separation in the eruption column 9 . For plumes that do not reach atmospheric freezing levels, the dominant charging mechanism is silicate particle charging, through fracturing of 10 , 11 and/or collision of particles 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 . If sufficiently high plumes are generated, ice nucleation can further enhance the plume electrification during more evolved stages of the eruption 16 , 17 . Generally, volcanic ash becomes an effective catalyst for ice nucleation below −20 °C 18 , 19 . The majority of volcanic lightning studies were focused on major eruptions using data from global lightning networks, such as Vaisala GLD360 Global Lightning Detection 17 , 20 , 21 , Earth Networks Total Lightning Network 16 and the Global Volcanic Lightning Monitor of the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) 20 , 22 . However, the 2021 Tajogaite eruption passed under the radar of these networks due to the lack of nearby sensors as well as relatively low-amplitude volcanic lightning (in comparison to major eruptions), demonstrating that local electrical detectors are required 23 , 24 . This eruption provided the opportunity to continuously detect the electrical activity throughout transitioning eruption styles and intensities, which would vary on the order of hours to days. With the aim to link different electrical signals to varying explosive activity, electrostatic data from a Biral Thunderstorm Detector (BTD) was combined with thermal videography, visual imaging, standard atmospheric measurements, and volcanic tremor measurements.

Here we demonstrate that electrical discharges were generated almost continuously throughout the time of monitoring and that silicate particle charging was the main driver for plume electrification during this eruption. In addition, we find that transitions in the explosive activity, sometimes accompanied by sudden shifts in the seismic tremor amplitude, can be distinguished based on distinct changes in the electrical signature.

Electrical activity, seismic tremor, and plume height

Details of the monitoring setup, data collection 25 , and analysis are provided in the Methods section. Plume height data was obtained from two different organisations, the Toulouse Volcanic Ash Advisory Center (VAAC) and Plan de Emergencias Volcánicas de Canarias (PEVOLCA). These two datasets are compared with the time series of atmospheric temperature at the 0 °C, −10 °C and -20 °C isotherms (Fig.  2a ), the average and maximum value of the absolute voltage (V) per hour (Fig.  2b ) and the electrical discharge rate (discharges per hour) as detected by the BTD and identified by the volcanic lightning detection algorithm during the observation period (Fig.  2c ). It is important to take into account that the detection efficiency differs between the two BTD locations (BTD1 and BTD2) as the electric field decreases with the distance cubed at frequencies <100 Hz 26 , 27 . Besides the known distance between the BTD and the active vents, also the generally unknown and constantly changing height of the electrical discharges within the plume and the height and movement of the charged plume itself with respect to the BTD affect the amplitude of the electric field. In general, BTD2 had a higher detection efficiency due to its closer location to the active vents. This affects the electrical parameters calculated from the measurements.

a Volcanic plume heights as reported by the Toulouse Volcanic Ash Advisory Center (VAAC, black squares) and the Plan de Emergencias Volcánicas de Canarias (PEVOLCA, green circles) are compared to different temperature regions (shades of blue) as a function of height (m) above sea level. The elevation of the crater rim varied between 884.2 and 1071.2 m above sea level due to cycles of growth and collapse 5 . The red shaded area marks a local thunderstorm on 25 and 26 November. The grey shaded areas denote the periods for which no BTD data is available. b The one-hour average (black line, left y-axis) and maximum (purple line, right y-axis) of the absolute voltage measured by the primary antenna of the BTD. c The electrical discharge rate (light green vertical bars) and the normalised discharge rate (dark green vertical bars) per hour. The normalised discharge rate is the electrical discharge rate times the normalised maximum voltage measured per hour by the primary antenna. The light and dark red vertical bars show the electrical and normalised discharge rate, respectively, measured during a nearby thunderstorm. The arrows indicate the time of monitoring at each location (BTD1 and BTD2). Median calculated over one hour for d LP (dark blue line, left y-axis) and VLP (light blue line, right y-axis) amplitudes; e First principal component (PC1); f Second principal component (PC2).

The results show that volcanic ash primarily stayed below atmospheric freezing levels throughout the eruption, with an average maximum height of ~2968 m above sea level (a.s.l.) based on both datasets. On 28 September and 1 October, Toulouse VAAC and PEVOLCA did report the presence of volcanic ash at altitudes above the −10 °C isotherm, respectively, but the BTD had not yet been deployed at this time. Between 18:00 and 03:00 UTC on the night of 13-14 December, volcanic ash was observed at its highest level (almost 8 km a.s.l.), exceeding the −20 °C isotherm, as a result of intense ash-rich lava fountaining. A relatively small increase in the electrical discharge rate was detected in response to this activity. This explosive phase stopped around 21:30 UTC on 13 December marking the end of the 2021 Tajogaite eruption. Nonetheless, ash remained suspended at high altitudes for several hours longer. Toulouse VAAC did not detect any volcanic ash after 12:46 UTC on 15 December.

Electrical discharges were detected almost continuously, indicating that the eruption was very electrically active. In general, there is no clear correlation between the plume height, the electrical discharge rate, and the average and maximum voltage measured by the primary antenna (Fig.  2a–c ). There are short periods however, e.g. 29 September – 4 November, where fluctuations in the Toulouse VAAC plume height dataset are positively correlated to the overall changes in the electrical discharge rate. In contrast, between 1 and 3 December a strong increase in the electrical discharge rate was recorded while the eruption column height decreased more than 1.5 km, indicating an anticorrelation. The BTD recorded an electrical discharge rate >5000 discharges per hour on various occasions throughout the time of monitoring. These discharge rates were detected during different eruption styles, including strong ash emissions, ash-rich lava fountaining and intense Strombolian activity, as was observed both during a field campaign in early November 2021 and through videos posted by Instituto Volcanológico de Canarias on X (Twitter). The normalized discharge rate, which is the electrical discharge rate times the normalized maximum voltage measured per hour by the primary antenna (see Methods section), demonstrates that there is no relationship between these two parameters (Fig.  2b, c ). The average and maximum voltage fluctuate strongly throughout the eruption, with the primary antenna repeatedly reaching the saturation level of 0.785 V (Fig.  2b ).

Both the Very Long Period (VLP, 0.4–0.6 Hz) and the Long Period (LP, 1–5 Hz) tremor amplitude varied throughout the eruption (Fig.  2d ). The sharp decrease in amplitude on 27 September coincides with a temporary cease in the eruption shortly after the cone collapses on 25 September 7 , 8 . Similarly, the sudden changes in amplitude on 12 and 13 December are related to a short phase of quiescence followed by the highly explosive phase on the evening of 13 December. Since the volcanic tremor amplitude is highly variable, the temporal variation of the LP and VLP components was additionally analyzed using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The visual comparison of signals in Fig.  2 demonstrates that the first principal component (PC1) is mostly related to changes in the absolute tremor amplitude (Fig.  2e ), while the second principal component (PC2) is mainly dependent on their ratio. Based on findings from Bonadonna et al. 6 , this suggests that PC1 is related to the intensity of the explosive activity, whereas PC2 reflects the changes in the volcanic tremor source mechanism, which is in turn connected to the type of volcanic activity. A more detailed explanation is provided in the Methods section. Also for the volcanic tremor signals and the result of the PCA applies that there is no evident correlation with the plume height and the electrical parameters.

Types of electrical activity

A variety of electrical signals was detected throughout the course of the eruption, which would change frequently on the order of hours. In general, six main types of electrical signatures were observed, hereafter referred to as types 1-6:

Individual high-amplitude electrical discharges (typically >0.01 V, Fig.  3a ).

Voltage (V) measured by the primary (black line) and secondary (orange line) antennas of the BTD with the corresponding covariance (V 2 ) between the primary and secondary signals shown below (purple line). Note the different scales on the y-axis for each panel. a Individual high-amplitude electrical discharges; b Minutes-long bursts of quasi-continuous low-amplitude electrical activity; c Seconds-long bursts of quasi-continuous low-amplitude electrical activity; d Faint electrical discharges that generally remain unidentified by the detection algorithm; e Movement of charge, indicated by the slow-varying electrostatic signal. f Ash falling on top of the sensor, evidenced by the negative covariance. A single electrical discharge was detected at 10:27:56.6 UTC, indicated by the corresponding positive covariance.

Minutes-long “bursts” of quasi-continuous low-amplitude electrical activity, generally ranging between 0.001–0.01 V (Fig.  3b ).

Seconds-long (~2–45 s) “bursts” of quasi-continuous low-amplitude electrical activity, commonly below 0.005 V (Fig.  3c ).

Faint electrical discharges with a very low amplitude (<0.002 V) recorded by the primary antenna (Fig.  3d ). The sensitivity of the secondary antenna is too low to detect any electrical activity. For this reason, these discharges remain mostly undetected by the detection algorithm.

Movement of charge, visible as slow variations (~1–10 s) in the electrostatic signal. Simultaneous electrical discharges are superimposed and can still be detected by the detection algorithm (Fig.  3e ).

Ash fall on top of the sensor can be discriminated from electrical discharges as these impact transients produce electrical signals of opposite polarities at the two antennas, resulting in a negative covariance (Fig.  3f ). Electrical discharges can still be detected during ash fall, as is shown by the positive covariance at 10:27:56.6 UTC in Fig.  3f .

The ranges in measured voltage for signal types 1–4 are based on the detections of BTD2, which are generally of higher amplitude compared to BTD1 due to its closer location to the active vents. Combinations of different types were frequently observed. In particular, the individual high-amplitude discharges (signal type 1) were often accompanied by movements of charge (signal type 5). Also, mixtures of seconds- and minutes-long bursts of quasi-continuous low-amplitude electrical activity (signal types 2 and 3) were detected. Moreover, short periods of ash fall were regularly detected during the varying types of electrical activity.

Linking electrical activity to explosive eruption styles

During a field campaign in November 2021, changes in the explosive activity style and intensity were observed every few hours. Here, we compare in detail the electrical signals and electrical discharge rate detected at BTD2 to visual and thermal images as well as the volcanic tremor time series and corresponding PCA for the evening of 3 November and the entire day of 4 November (Fig.  4 ). Close-up plots of the different electrical signatures are provided in Supplementary Fig.  4 of the Supplementary Results.

a Pictures of different explosive eruption styles on 3 and 4 November: (1) Ash-rich lava fountaining at 23:30:53 UTC on 3 November, producing a plume of approximately 3 km a.s.l. and a flash of volcanic lightning. Courtesy of Francisco Cáceres Acevedo. Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder; (2) Mild ash emissions at 07:44 UTC on 4 November, producing a small ash plume; (3) Gas jetting at 13:11 UTC on 4 November; (4) Strong ash emissions at 17:08 UTC on 4 November, producing a plume of approximately 3 km a.s.l.; (5) Lava fountaining without the generation of a large ash plume in contrast to (1). Picture was taken at 21:51 UTC on 4 November. Courtesy of Francisco Cáceres Acevedo. Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. b – f Measurements taken between 21:00 UTC on 3 November until 00:00 UTC on 5 November. Numbered pictures in panel a show prevalent activity of the periods 1-5 reported in panels b-f . b Voltage (V) measured by the primary (black line) and secondary (orange line) antennas of BTD2. Close-up plots of the different electrical signatures are shown in Supplementary Fig.  4 . c Electrical discharge rate (discharges per 5 minutes) as green vertical bars (left y-axis) and the maximum value of the absolute voltage measured by the primary antenna per 5 minutes in purple (right y-axis with log-scale). d Seismic tremor amplitude, showing the LP amplitude (dash-dotted line) on the left y-axis and the VLP amplitude (solid line) on the right y-axis. The peaks were produced by earthquakes. e First principal component (PC1), which is mostly related to changes in the absolute tremor amplitude. f) Second principal component (PC2), which mainly reflects changes in the volcanic tremor source mechanism.

Between 21:00 UTC on 3 November and 00:03 UTC on 4 November, BTD2 recorded individual high-amplitude electrical discharges (signal type 1), which frequently exceeded a measured voltage of 0.1 V (Fig.  4b, c and Supplementary Fig.  4b ). This electrical activity was recorded during ash-rich lava fountaining from the main active vent (Figs.  4 a- 1 ), which produced a 3 km a.s.l. tall ash plume (Toulouse VAAC data; Fig.  2a ). The thermal videography showed an initial diameter of 300-500 m of the eruption column with relatively dense, turbulent eddies (Supplementary Fig.  5a ). At this time, many flashes of volcanic lightning were detected (Fig.  4c ). For short periods of time, pyroclasts were ejected from a second vent as well (Supplementary Fig.  5a ).

After 00:03 UTC, the electrical discharges occurred less frequently and gradually decreased in magnitude (<0.1 V, Fig.  4b, c and Supplementary Fig.  4c ). This progressive decline in the electrical activity corresponds to a decrease in plume height as reported by Toulouse VAAC (Fig.  2a ), indicating a waning of the explosive activity. These changes are accompanied by a high variability in the tremor amplitudes and the value of PC1, while the value of PC2 shows a descending trend (Fig.  2d, f ). Due to the lower magnitude of the electrical discharges, the movement of charge (signal type 5) produced by the moving electrified ash plume relative to the BTD, becomes visible in the electrical data (Supplementary Fig.  4c ).

From approximately 03:00 UTC on, the lava fountaining phase stopped and mild ash emission producing a small and well-defined ash plume (basal diameter <100 m) was observed (Figs.  4 a- 2 ). This was accompanied by very faint (<0.001 V) electrical discharges (Supplementary Fig.  4d ) that predominantly remained undetected by the algorithm (signal type 4). Consequently, the electrical discharge rate is very low during this period (Fig.  4c ).

The explosive activity subsequently changed into a phase of gas jetting with minor amounts of particles being ejected (Figs.  4 a- 3 ). This change was preceded by a temporary increase in both the tremor amplitudes and the value of PC1 and a temporary decrease in the value of PC2. At times, shock waves were visible, indicating gas expansion velocities above the speed of sound. Between 13:09-14:16 UTC, BTD2 detected ~3-10 seconds long bursts of quasi-continuous electrical activity with a measured voltage commonly below 0.001 V (signal type 3; Fig.  4c and Supplementary Fig.  4e ). From the thermal images can be deduced that cooling of the pyroclasts is of minor importance in the first 300 m of vertical transport and that the pyroclasts continued to rise up to 1000 m above the crater rim (a.c.r.). Note that the higher amplitude signals recorded between 13:45-13:50 UTC are an artefact of carrying out maintenance of the BTD. From 14:28 UTC on, ash and lapilli started falling at the location of BTD2, occasionally resulting in a signal of negative covariance. Between 15:10-15:34 UTC, the quasi-continuous electrical bursts increased in duration (up to ~45 seconds) and generally had a slightly higher measured voltage (<0.002 V, Fig.  4c and Supplementary Fig.  4f ). Simultaneously, an increase in the VLP amplitude was recorded, resulting in an increase in the value of PC1 and a decrease in the value of PC2 (Fig.  4d–f ). During this time, the thermal images show an increment in the intensity of the gas jetting, evident from the increase in the total amount of hot material that is ejected up to greater heights (up to 700 m a.c.r.).

From 15:46 UTC onward, ash fall increased at BTD2 (along with a few minutes of light rain), based on the prevalent detection of electrical signals of opposite polarity at the two antennas (signal type 6, Supplementary Fig.  4g ) as well as direct observations. This coincided with a change in the activity from gas jetting to ash emissions at two vents simultaneously. During this period, both the tremor amplitudes and the value of PC1 gradually decreased, while the value of PC2 gradually increased (Fig.  4d–f ). Around 16:57:43 UTC, the explosive activity increased in intensity and changed rapidly from mild to very strong ash emission, as is manifested in the rise diagram by the increase in the average height and temperature of the eruption column (Figs.  4 a- 4 and 5 ). This sudden change in activity was accompanied by a sharp decrease in both tremor amplitudes and the value of PC1, as well as a distinct increase in the value of PC2 (Fig.  4d–f ). Shortly after at 16:57:50 UTC, individual high-amplitude electrical discharges (>0.1 V, signal type 1) were detected (Fig.  4b, c and Supplementary Fig.  4h ), which lasted for almost 1.5 hours. The ash plume reached a height of approximately 3 km a.s.l. according to the Toulouse VAAC (Fig.  2 ).

Single thermal frame of a mild ash emissions at 16:55:30 UTC and b strong ash emissions at 16:59:30 UTC entering the clouds approximately 900 metres above the crater rim (see Figs.  4 a- 4 ). The y-axes correspond to the y-scale of panel c . c Thermal infrared rise diagram showing the evolution of the maximum temperature (blue is cold and yellow is hot) as a function of time and height (left y-axis). The crater rim of the main active vent is at a height of 0 m in the diagram. At lower heights, currently inactive vents can be seen as thermal anomalies due to ongoing passive degassing. The increase in magnitude of the explosive activity at 16:57:43 UTC (vertical red dashed line) is closely followed by the onset of individual high-amplitude electrical discharges (signal type 1) as recorded by the primary antenna of BTD2 (black line, right y-axis).

Around 18:22 UTC, the electrical discharge rate and the maximum value of the absolute voltage decreased (Fig.  4c ). This change was accompanied by a brief increase in the seismic tremor amplitudes and the value of PC1, as well as a temporary decrease in the value of PC2 (Fig.  4d–f ). During this time, the thermal data showed that the vent area was obscured by clouds most of the time, and therefore no information is available on the explosive activity. It can be speculated, however, based on the measurements that the activity was starting to change at this point. Around 18:46 UTC, once the clouds had cleared away, the thermal images showed that the explosive activity had indeed changed to a lava-fountaining phase again (Figs.  4 a- 5 ), dominated by the ejection of incandescent bombs. In general, the lava fountains reached heights of 500–1000 metres above the crater rim, although individual bombs were occasionally ejected to greater heights. In contrast to the lava fountaining phase on the evening of 3 November, less ash was emitted. As a result, the eruption column only had an initial diameter of 100–200 m and dense, turbulent eddies remained absent (Supplementary Fig.  5b ). This change in explosive activity coincided with a change in electrical activity from individual high-amplitude electrical discharges (signal type 1) to predominantly minutes-long bursts with measured voltages generally between 0.001–0.01 V (signal type 2, Fig.  4c and Supplementary Fig.  4i ), sometimes interrupted by bursts of shorter duration but similar measured voltage. However, contrary to the signal shown in Fig.  3b, c , these signals did not have only positive covariance values, which is one of the criteria of the volcanic lightning detection algorithm (see Methods section and Vossen et al. 23 for more information). For this case, the negative covariance could result from the low sensitivity of the secondary antenna, or it could be caused by an ash-induced change/lag in the capacitance of one of the antennas due to previous ash fall deposited on the sensor. This does not affect the detection of the electrical discharges by the BTD but does result in an underestimate of the electrical discharge rate as the detection algorithm disregards signals with a negative covariance (Fig.  4c ). During this lava fountaining phase, the tremor amplitudes and the values of PC1 and PC2 remained relatively constant with comparison to the previous explosive phase.

Strombolian activity was not observed on 3 and 4 November but was observed for several hours on the evening of 6 November. Compared to the phases of lava fountaining, the incandescent bombs were ejected to lower heights, generally less than 500 metres above the crater rim (Fig.  6 ). In addition, a partially opaque ash plume was produced. This type of activity predominantly produced a mixture of seconds-long and minutes-long bursts of electrical activity with measured voltages dominantly between 0.001–0.0025 V (signal types 2 and 3, Fig.  6d ), although at times single electrical discharges of similar amplitude occurred in between bursts. Comparing three sequences of thermal frames, corresponding to different electrical signals demonstrates that there are small differences in the explosive activity on short timescales, especially in the size of the eruption column. Very minor Strombolian activity, reaching heights up to 200 m a.c.r. (Fig.  6a ), produced little to no electrical activity. A burst of quasi-continuous electrical discharges lasting ~2.5 minutes was detected during a period where pyroclasts were ejected up to 400 m a.c.r. (Fig.  6b ), while a shorter burst lasting approximately 20 seconds was generated during intermediate Strombolian activity reaching heights of 100-300 m a.c.r. (Fig.  6c ). Nonetheless, no obvious correlation between the electrical signals and the rise diagram can be observed that could explain the variation in the duration of the bursts (Fig.  6d ). Although there are periods where (longer) bursts of electrical activity coincide with pyroclasts being ejected to greater heights, at other times the opposite seems true.

Single frames extracted every 5 seconds from a thermal video taken at 15 fps, with the first frame taken at a 01:29:00 UTC, b 01:31:00 UTC and c 01:38:00 UTC on 7 November 2021. d Thermal infrared rise diagram showing the evolution of the maximum temperature (blue is cold and yellow is hot) as a function of time and height (left y-axis). The crater rim of the main active vent is at a height of 0 m in the diagram. In addition, the voltage (V) measured by the primary antenna of BTD2 (black line, right y-axis) is shown, predominantly displaying a mixture of signal types 2 and 3. The red rectangles indicate the time periods of each sequence of thermal frames shown in panels a-c .

Ice nucleation can enhance the amount of charge in the plume, resulting in more and stronger lightning at high altitudes during evolved phases of the eruption, also known as plume volcanic lightning. Recent examples of major eruptions where ice-rich plumes generated a great amount of lightning include the 2018 Anak Krakatau eruption in Indonesia 16 , the 2020 Taal eruption in the Philippines 28 , and the 2022 Hunga eruption in Tonga 29 , 30 . Volcanic ash emission during the 2021 Tajogaite eruption was observed to be of variable intensity but the eruption plume height never exceeded the -10 °C isotherm during the time of monitoring, with exception of the stronger explosive event on the evening of 13 December (Fig.  2a ). As volcanic ash becomes an effective catalyst for ice nucleation at temperatures below −20 °C 18 , it can be concluded that ice nucleation did not play a key role as a plume electrification mechanism during the whole eruption. Similar findings were reported for hundreds of relatively small-scale ash-rich explosive events (<6 km plume height) at Sakurajima volcano, Japan 23 . Nonetheless, as near-vent volcanic lightning was frequently detected at both volcanoes, the importance of silicate particle charging as the responsible plume electrification process is beyond doubt.

The final explosive activity on 13 December 2021 lasted for a few hours and produced a plume that reached a height of ~7600 m a.s.l., exceeding the −20 °C isotherm. At this stage, ice nucleation on ash particles was possible, potentially enhancing plume electrification. However, the electrical discharge rate remained relatively low compared to previous explosive phases, even though the discharge rate did increase in the minutes following the onset of this more vigorous activity (Fig.  2c ). The BTD recorded many individual high-amplitude electrical discharges (signal type 1) during this time, but some of these transients had a negative covariance. Particularly the strongest electrical discharges were recorded with an offset of 10–20 ms between the primary and secondary antenna, while for the smaller electrical discharges the secondary antenna did not record any change in the electrostatic field. Based on the electrical signal of type 6 that was recorded earlier that afternoon, we speculate that this is caused by a change or lag in the capacitance of one of the antennas due to ash having been deposited on the sensor. For example, ash covering the shielding cap of the secondary antenna would both increase its capacitance as well as its shielding ability, making the secondary antenna less responsive to fast electrostatic field changes. This false negative covariance affects the detection algorithm which artificially underestimates the electrical discharge rate. Hence, it is possible that ice nucleation aided the generation of volcanic lightning at the end of the eruption, but near-vent charging of silicate particles remains the dominant charging mechanism during the whole Tajogaite eruption, regardless of plume height and eruption style.

Behnke et al. 31 proposed that fluctuations in the electrical discharge rate throughout a single eruption can be either caused by intensified charging of particles at the vent due to an increase in source flux or enhanced plume electrification due to ice nucleation. However, we also observed variations in the electrical activity, and thus the electrical discharge rate, with changing explosive eruption style. This is corroborated by the fact that the highest discharge rates (>5000 discharges per hour) were detected during various eruption styles and there is no correlation between the measured voltage and the electrical discharge rate, as is evident from the normalised discharge rate (Fig.  2b, c ). This demonstrates that during the Tajogaite eruption, the fluctuations in the electrical discharge rate are controlled by changes in the mass eruption rate 13 , 22 as well as changes in eruption style. The former fits with the observation that the fluctuations in the electrical discharge rate are sometimes for short periods of time positively correlated with changes in the plume height (e.g. 29 September–4 November), while the latter explains why high electrical discharge rates can be detected even during times of relatively low volcanic plume height (e.g. 1–3 December). In general, however, no clear correlation was found between the plume height and the electrical discharge rate (Figs.  2 a, c ), which may have several reasons. It is important to take into account the difference in temporal resolution between the continuous electrical measurements and the plume heights that are reported only a few times per day. Moreover, the Toulouse VAAC focuses on the flight levels that are affected by ash, which may have resulted in an overestimation of the eruption column height, as detached ash clouds can remain at high altitudes for long periods of time. On the other hand, the plume heights have not been corrected for wind. Field campaign observations showed that the wind could strongly bend the plume, which would create an underestimate of the eruption magnitude 6 . In addition, it is possible for new explosions pulses to eject pyroclasts into an already existing plume without affecting the height of the eruption column, while enhancing the amount of plume electrification and possibly increasing the electrical discharge rate. Moreover, fissure-fed eruptions, such as the Tajogaite eruption, are characterized by different explosive eruption styles occurring simultaneously from multiple vents. This complicates the deconvolution and interpretation of electrical and volcanic tremor signals generated at different vents or in different eruption columns. This can further explain periods where there is little correlation between electrical discharge rate, volcanic tremor amplitude, and plume height (Fig.  2 ).

The Tajogaite eruption was characterised by a variety of explosive eruption styles: mild and strong ash emission, gas jetting, Strombolian explosions, and lava fountaining. Variations in the electrical signals recorded by the BTD can be linked to distinct changes in the explosive activity. However, to understand the electrical signature of each eruption style, several eruption parameters need to be considered, including the grain size distribution and kinetic energy of the ejected tephra, mass eruption rate, plume height, the temperature of the erupted mass, and the lifetime of the eruption column.

Phases of strong ash emission and lava fountaining, producing ash plumes of several kilometres in height, generated individual high-amplitude electrical discharges (>0.01 V, signal type 1; Fig.  4a-b ). Although there are differences between these two explosive eruption styles, both ejected a large amount of ash for hours without interruption, which is responsible for generating substantial charge in the plume through the fracturing and collisions of particles. The development of a tall volcanic ash plume, especially one that is sustained for several hours, allows the build-up of a strong electric field through charge separation and the formation of charge clusters 13 , 32 , 33 , generating volcanic lightning of high measured voltage. Other explosive activity during the Tajogaite eruption, such as gas jetting, Strombolian activity, or lava fountaining ejecting significantly less ash, lacked the formation of such a well-developed ash plume. This shows that the ejection of large quantities of ash, subsequently undergoing convection and rising to form a mature plume, forms the foundation for the generation of type 1 electrical signals. Similar electrical activity was detected during the impulsive Vulcanian explosions at Sakurajima volcano, Japan 23 , and larger-scale explosions at Stromboli volcano, Italy 24 . This suggests that the electrical signals detected during type 1 activity are produced by the commonly observed volcanic lightning, known as near-vent and plume volcanic lightning 34 , 35 . This is confirmed by direct observations made on the evening of 3 November (Figs.  4 a- 1 ). The movement of strongly electrified ash plumes resulted in slow-varying (~1-10 seconds) electrical signals at the antennas (Fig.  3e ).

A special case is the sudden onset of strong ash emission in the afternoon on 4 November, which generated high-amplitude electrical discharges almost instantly and was accompanied by abrupt changes in the tremor amplitudes and the values of PC1 and PC2 (Fig.  4 ). We speculate that this swift change in volcanic activity observed on 4 November was the result of a partial collapse of the shallow plumbing system, which would cause recycled ash to be ejected in addition to juvenile material. Due to the increased activity at the vent, the source of volcanic tremor would have become shallower. In addition, the widening of the conduit would have made the tremor generation mechanism less efficient, leading to a decrease in the volcanic tremor amplitude, consistent with our measurements. Bonadonna et al. (2022) 6 demonstrated the relationship between the stratigraphy, which is directly related to the eruption style, and the variations in volcanic tremor both in terms of amplitude and ratio, which are reflected in PC1 and PC2, respectively. Between 1-3 November, a clear shift in the stratigraphy (from Middle Unit MU2-5 to MU6) was accompanied by a similar, slightly larger decrease in the VLP amplitude and an increase in LP/VLP ratio 6 in comparison to the event on 4 November. Moreover, Middle Unit MU6 contains oxidised red, dull-looking scoriae clasts besides juvenile clasts 6 , which could indeed be an indication of recycled material. Although few ash particles, and thus charge, lingered in the air before the onset of this ash-rich phase, volcanic lightning was generated almost instantly. The charging of recycled ash is mostly limited to particles colliding with each other, as it does not undergo fragmentation like juvenile material. Hence, if our speculation is correct, the occurrence of volcanic lightning during this event shows that instability of the upper volcanic conduit and the crater walls can generate adequate charging by remobilisation and recycling of older incoherent material in addition to that provoked by the ejection of juvenile tephra.

In contrast, mild ash emission producing small ash plumes with a basal diameter of <100 metres (Figs.  4 a- 2 ) generated only weak electrical discharges (<0.002 V, signal type 4; Fig.  3d ), which predominantly remained undiscovered by the detection algorithm due to the low signal-to-noise ratio of both antennas. This type of explosive activity is driven by much lower kinetic energy and mass eruption rates. Therefore, little plume electrification occurs and consequently few electrical discharges are generated. Signal types 1 and 4 can be viewed as opposite end-members of a continuous spectrum covering a large range of amplitudes and frequencies for individual electrical discharges, depending on the source parameters of the ash-rich explosive events. During the few occasions that movement of charge was detected, the slow-varying electrical signals had a much lower magnitude compared to those detected during larger-scale ash plumes produced by Volcán de Tajogaite, further demonstrating the presence of a weakly charged plume.

Bursts of quasi-continuous electrical discharges of low to intermediate measured voltages (<0.01 V, signal types 2 and 3) were detected during phases of gas jetting (Figs.  4 a- 3 ), Strombolian activity (Fig.  6 ) and lava fountaining (Figs.  4 a- 5 ), during which the emission of ash was reduced and the development of a large volcanic ash plume remained absent. This type of electrical activity has not been detected before by BTD measurements at other volcanoes and is distinctly different from the individual high-amplitude electrical discharges detected during strong ash emissions 23 , 24 . The quasi-continuous electrical discharges are likely the result of different fragmentation efficiencies, eruption dynamics, and source parameters characterising these explosions. Transitions between gas jetting, Strombolian explosions, and lava fountaining are a result of variable conditions of two-phase flow coupling between the magma and the gas in the shallow conduit. These variations in association with relative variation in the magma viscosity (mainly as a function of crystallization rate at shallow depth) regulate the efficiency of the magmatic fragmentation 8 , 36 , therefore affecting the total grain size distribution and total mass of the ejected tephra. It was suggested that secondary brittle fragmentation can occur during lava fountaining when rapid adiabatic cooling is paired with continued gas exsolution and high vesicularity 37 , resulting in additional production of fine pyroclasts. Polymodal grain size distribution in the volcanic jet is important to produce charge in the eruption column, as solid particles are the main carriers of charge, and inertia of clasts with different sizes will enhance particle collision and clustering (of both particles and charge) in the turbulent flow 13 , 38 . During the field campaign in November 2021, production of ash particles was observed during phases of gas jetting, Strombolian activity and lava fountaining (Figs.  4 a and 6b ), underpinning the possibility of charge generation. The thermals associated with these explosive styles were of short duration so that the eruptive column was mainly limited to the gas-thrust phase, resulting in eruption column heights of only a few hundred metres up to 1 km a.c.r. depending on the eruption style. Moreover, the eruption columns were short-lived due to a large proportion of ejected particles falling back down close to the vent 39 , although overlap of falling and rising pyroclasts ejected during the next pulse occurred regularly 8 . Consequently, these types of explosive eruption styles did not build up strongly electrified, convecting plumes with large charge clusters, and as a result, did not generate the conventional volcanic lightning as in the case of sustained ash-rich eruptive episodes. Taddeucci et al. 8 found that although all explosive activity was pulsating, gas jetting (named ash-poor jets in the study), Strombolian activity (spattering), and lava fountains had shorter pulse intervals than the strong ash emissions (ash-rich jets). Also the maximum particle ejection velocity (MPEV) was higher for these three explosion styles in comparison to strong ash emissions 8 . So rather, the short-lived eruption columns but quickly pulsating nature and high particle ejection velocity of these explosions likely resulted in faster charging and more efficient discharging due to increased turbulence, explaining these bursts of low-amplitude electrical discharges. Interestingly though, the case study shows that lava fountains can generate electrical signals of type 1 as well as types 2 and 3, suggesting that this activity style covers a wide range of eruption dynamics and source parameters. The key difference that determines what type of electrical signal is generated during lava fountaining (type 1 versus types 2 and 3), is the amount of volcanic ash that is being ejected and whether this results in a well-developed plume or not (Supplementary Fig.  5 ). The difference between signal types 2 and 3 seems more complex, as they share similar characteristics and can occur interchangeably on short time scales, but quantifying this will require detailed time series of the source parameters during future eruptions.

The duration of the electrical bursts increased from gas jetting (<45 seconds; Supplementary Fig.  4e-f ) to pulsating Strombolian activity (seconds to minutes) to continuous lava fountaining (predominantly minutes; Supplementary Fig.  4i ), which is positively correlated to a combination of relative kinetic energy, mass flux, height of the eruption column and duration of each individual explosion phase. The lava fountains were driven by the highest kinetic energy and were estimated to have the greatest mass flux, ranging between 0.8–2.8 × 10 4 kg s [−1 8 , which was reflected in their relatively high eruption columns 40 , 41 . A high mass flux and MPEV (~24–100 m s −1 ) provide favourable conditions to rapidly generate a lot of plume electrification through a large number of particles fracturing and colliding at a fast rate, which could explain the overall long duration of these bursts. Short term variations most likely affected the efficiency of charging and discharging 31 , which could be the reason for shorter bursts interrupting the predominantly minutes-long bursts of electrical activity. In contrast, Strombolian activity was found to have both a relatively intermediate mass flux of 4–9 × 10 3 kg s −1 and an intermediate MPEV of ~26–32 m s [−1 8 . The same study also showed that this type of activity consisted for ~18–31% of bombs with a diameter >0.5 m. The presence of fine particles is key for the generation of charge 13 , 14 . Hence, fluctuations in the grain size distribution, such as the proportion of large bombs, could have either hindered or promoted the plume electrification processes and thus affecting the duration of the electrical bursts. In addition, small variations in the size of the eruption column, as observed in the thermal data (Fig.  6 ), may further affect the duration, although this relationship is not always evident and requires further investigation. The mass flux of gas jetting was estimated to be the lowest of these three eruption styles, ranging between 0.2–8 × 10 3 kg s [−1 9 , creating a relatively low-density eruption column as particles would reach similar heights as in lava fountains. A lower density would mean fewer particles colliding and therefore less charge creation, which could explain why gas jetting generated the shortest bursts of electrical activity. Moreover, the thermal images showed that the core temperature during phases of Strombolian activity and lava fountaining was often higher in comparison to the material ejected during gas jetting. Stern et al. 42 carried out rapid decompression experiments at temperatures up to 320 °C. Although the effect of temperature in the rapid decompression experiments is of difficult interpretation, the results showed that experiments at higher temperatures promoted the increase in the number of small electrical discharges in the gas-particle mixture as well as the total duration of electrical discharges. Furthermore, the experiments at higher temperatures produced the highest charging rates early on in the experiment, this effect being correlated with the increased expansivity and turbulence in the particle-laden jets. This could additionally explain the increased electrical activity during Strombolian activity and lava fountaining. Similarly, a short period of an increased amount of hot material being ejected up to greater heights during gas jetting resulted in longer bursts (comparing Supplementary Fig.  4e – f ). This suggests that the temperature of the gas-particle mixture may play an important role in generating the conditions for the occurrence of these bursts of electrical activity as well. All these findings together suggest that signal types 2 and 3 are part of a continuous spectrum, where the duration and magnitude of these bursts depend on many different factors.

The 2021 Tajogaite eruption provided a unique electrical data set, which enabled us to link variations in the electrical activity to changes in the explosive activity during a prolonged eruption. These findings could aid other geophysical parameters in the classification of the different explosive eruption styles, which was particularly challenging for this eruption due to the rapid transitions from one activity into another 8 . A deeper understanding of these electrical signatures and the underlying charge mechanisms could possibly provide estimates of the relative proportion of ash, the mass eruption rate and plume height in the future. This will require further investigation during upcoming eruptions, where detailed time series of the source parameters are obtained and correlated to the electrical signatures. Moreover, our results show that local electrical monitoring of active volcanoes can provide valuable near real-time information on changes in the explosive eruption style as well as the magnitude, which may pass unobserved by regional and global lightning detection systems. The occurrence of volcanic lightning is an indicator of explosive volcanic activity without requiring the need for visibility on the crater. Hence, including electrical detectors in local monitoring networks will become increasingly more important as our ability to interpret these signals improves.

Electrical measurements

The electrical activity generated by the explosive activity of the Tajogaite eruption was recorded by a Biral Thunderstorm Detector BTD-200 (BTD). The sensor was installed on 11 October 2021 at 2.65 km distance NNW from the active craters (location BTD1) and moved SW from the eruptive vents at a distance of 1.77 km (location BTD2) on 27 October 2021 to have a higher detection efficiency as a result of being closer, as well as for logistical reasons. It recorded at location BTD2 until the end of the eruption (Fig.  1 ). Both installations were located within the exclusion zone of the eruption, which helped reduce the anthropogenic background noise near the instrument.

The BTD measures the slow temporal variation in the electrostatic field within a frequency range of 1–45 Hz 43 . It consists of a primary antenna, which has the highest sensitivity, and a secondary antenna that is shielded by a plastic cap. These antennas allow for the detection of electrical discharges, movements of charge, and impact transients, such as charged precipitation or ash falling on the sensor 23 , 24 , 43 . On the one hand, lightning produces transients of the same polarity at both antennas, resulting in a positive covariance between the two signals. On the other hand, charged particles impacting the primary antenna induce a signal of opposite polarity at the secondary antenna, thus resulting in a negative covariance. The raw voltage output from the BTD was digitised using an analog-to-digital converter into a voltage used for calculation by the internal processors 25 . Note that the resulting measured voltage is proportional to the rate of change in the electrostatic field experienced by the antennas, not the voltage of the discharge source itself. The antennas have a saturation level that corresponds to a measured voltage of 0.785 V.

A volcanic lightning detection algorithm, described in Vossen et al. 23 , used several empirical thresholds to identify signals as electrical discharges. First, the electrical signals needed to have the same polarity at both antennas and a positive covariance of ≥1.0. Additionally, the ratio between the two antenna signals needed to be >3.0, while the signal-to-noise ratio of the primary and secondary antenna signals needed to be above 2.3 and 1.5, respectively. The covariance and background noise values were calculated over a moving window of 16 and 128 samples, respectively, with a step size of 1 sample.

From the number of electrical discharges identified by the algorithm, the electrical discharge rate (discharges per hour) was calculated. In addition, the average and maximum value of the absolute voltage (V) measured by the primary antenna of the BTD were calculated per hour. To show the relationship between the electrical discharge rate and the amplitude of the discharges, we normalised the electrical discharge rate by normalising the maximum measured voltage by the saturation level of the primary antenna (0.785 V) and multiplying this with the electrical discharge rate. A 1:1 ratio between the normalised and calculated electrical discharge rate indicates that the strongest electrical discharge within that hour saturated the primary antenna, while a small ratio indicates that the strongest discharge was relatively low in amplitude. Although the electrical parameters are calculated and provided for both BTD locations, these cannot be compared to each other. At frequencies <100 Hz, the electric field decreases proportional to the distance cubed 26 , 27 . This distance depends on the distance between the BTD and the active vents, the height of the electrical discharges within the plume, and the height and movement of the charged plume with respect to the sensor. BTD2 had a higher detection efficiency due to it being installed 880 m closer to the active vents. As a result, the electrical signals detected by BTD2 typically have a higher amplitude, and thus generally also a higher signal-to-noise ratio, which facilitated the identification of electrical discharges by the algorithm. For this reason, this study focuses mainly on the measurements of BTD2.

The electrical measurements were compared to the varying plume heights and explosive eruption styles using thermal and visual imaging. Note that besides a single flash at 85 km distance from the active craters on 22 November and a thunderstorm on the night of 25–26 November, there is no sign of electrical activity associated with this eruption in the WWLLN dataset. Also, the other global lightning networks did not report any volcanic lightning throughout the event.

Thermal imaging

To gain more insight into the frequently changing explosive activity of Cumbre Vieja, the continuously recorded electrical data was complemented with thermal videography through the temporary installation of an InfraTec HD thermal infrared (TIR) video camera. The TIR camera was installed NNW from the active craters at a distance of 4.3 km (Fig.  1 ). The camera was focused on the explosive activity at the eruptive vents. It was recorded almost continuously during a field campaign from 3–8 November with a maximum definition of 640 × 480 pixels at 15 frames per second (fps). A Jenoptik IR 1.0/30 LW objective was used, resulting in a pixel resolution of ~3.6 m at the active vents. The camera software corrected the effects of atmospheric absorption in situ, based on temperature, air humidity, and distance between the camera and the active craters.

We use single frames of the thermal recording to determine the eruption style and time/height thermal infrared diagrams (rise diagrams) to distinguish individual ejection pulses both night and day 25 . TIR rise diagrams show the evolution of the maximum temperature anomaly as a function of time and height 44 , 45 . To obtain these diagrams, the algorithm developed by Gaudin et al. 44 , 45 was used, which retains the maximum temperature of each row of a single frame after removing the background brightness by subtracting the previous frame. This analysis was carried out for every 30th thermal frame for a 5-minute time window and every 120th frame for a 20-minute time window (i.e. every 2 and 8 seconds of recording, respectively). In this study, the rise diagrams are used to investigate the link between the electrical signals and the pulsating explosive activity and changes thereof. More detailed future analysis could provide information on the erupted products (ash- or bomb-dominated) and the rise velocity (based on the slope of the traces) as well 44 , 45 .

Seismic tremor measurements

Seismic tremor measurements were obtained every 50 seconds using seismic station PLPI (Fig.  1a ), which was operated by Instituto Volcanológico de Canarias (INVOLCAN), to gain more insight into the processes occurring inside the conduit and at the vents 46 . In this work, we consider the volcanic tremor amplitude in the Very Long Period (VLP, 0.4–0.6 Hz) and the Long Period (LP, 1–5 Hz) frequency bands 25 . Due to the different wavelengths of these components, they provide information about the tremor source mechanism at different depths. Using the local S-wave velocity model of D’Auria et al. 46 , we can state that the penetration depth of the VLP component inside the conduit is of few hundred metres, while that of the LP components is a few tens of metres. Therefore, the LP component is more tightly related to the explosive mechanism at the vent, while the VLP component reflects the overall amount of gas flowing through the conduit. Bonadonna et al. 6 demonstrated that the absolute tremor amplitude is related to the intensity of the explosive activity and the ratio between the components reflects changes in the source mechanism of the volcanic tremor and, similarly, in the eruptive mechanism. This can be explained considering that the volcanic tremor wavefield is composed dominantly of Rayleigh waves. Since the volcanic tremor amplitude is highly variable, instead of using the raw ratio, we analysed the temporal variation of these two different components using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Before applying PCA, we normalised the amplitudes by taking the logarithm, subtracting the average, and dividing them by the standard deviation. The result of the PCA is provided in Supplementary Fig.  1 in the Supplementary Methods, which shows that the temporal variation is represented by two components. The first principal component (PC1) is mostly related to the absolute amplitude of the volcanic tremor and thus reflects the intensity of the explosive activity. The second principal component (PC2) mostly depends on the ratio between the LP and VLP amplitude, indicating that it reflects the changes in the volcanic tremor source mechanism, which is in turn connected to the type of volcanic activity.

Background atmospheric conditions

To determine whether ice charging played a role as a plume electrification mechanism in addition to near-vent silicate particle charging, plume heights were compared to the elevation of the 0 °C, −10 °C, and −20 °C isotherms 47 . The Toulouse Volcanic Ash Advisory Center (VAAC) reported the flight levels affected by volcanic ash based on both satellite data and data from the Volcano Observatory Notice for Aviation. The latter was compiled by the Instituto Geográfico Nacional using a camera of the Instituto Astrofísico de Canarias located 16.5 km north of the active vents at an altitude of 2365 m a.s.l. 48 . These flight levels were converted to plume heights, providing a general trend throughout the course of the eruption 25 . Note, however, that these values provide an upper limit, as detached ash clouds may remain at high altitudes for a long period of time even after the explosive activity at the vents has waned or stopped. Moreover, there might be a delay between the plume height and the time it is reported by the Toulouse VAAC, as information was predominantly provided at regular times during the day (03:00, 09:00, 15:00 and 21:00 UTC). We additionally included plume heights that were reported by Plan de Emergencias Volcánicas de Canarias (PEVOLCA) to provide more detail at times when the Toulouse VAAC did not report any change. These plume heights were obtained using the camera of Instituto Astrofísico de Canarias as well, but only once per day (typically mornings, but plotted here at 12:00 p.m. as a fixed time of the day) 25 .

Thermodynamic parameters, such as temperature, pressure, relative humidity as well as wind speed and direction, were obtained from weather balloon profiles twice a day (at 00:00 and 12:00 UTC) 25 , which were provided by the University of Wyoming, Department of Atmospheric Science ( http://weather.uwyo.edu/ ). However, these weather balloons were released about 150 km east of Volcán de Tajogaite at Güímar (station nr. 60018) on Tenerife island. To ascertain that the temperature measurements are representative of the conditions on La Palma as well, the data was compared to temperature measurements from two ground weather stations of the State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) of Spain on La Palma: El Paso (844 m a.s.l.) and Roque de los Muchachos (2223 m a.s.l.) (Fig.  1 ) 25 . Although the temperature variation between night and day is greater for the AEMET ground stations, the overall trend is very similar to the weather balloon data set (Supplementary Figs.  2 and 3 in Supplementary Methods). Therefore, we concluded that the Güímar data is sufficiently accurate to construct the different isotherms over La Palma and are representative of the atmospheric conditions encountered by the Tajogaite ash plumes at higher altitudes.

Stable fair-weather conditions over La Palma recorded by meteorological stations during the whole eruption (with the exception of a single thunderstorm episode on 25 and 26 November 2021), allow a confident attribution of changes in lightning activity to the variable explosive activity of Volcán de Tajogaite. WWLLN reported 21 lightning flashes within 20 km radius of La Palma and 886 flashes within 100 km radius between 25 and 26 November. The first and last flashes were detected on 25 November at 16:43:47 UTC and 26 November at 10:48:51 UTC, respectively. During this time, it is unknown whether the electrical discharges detected by the BTD are to be related to volcanic or meteorological lightning.

Data availability

All data is available here: Vossen, Caron E.J.; Cimarelli, Corrado; D’Auria, Luca; Cigala, Valeria; Kueppers, Ulrich; Barrancos, José; Bennett, Alec J. Multiparametric measurements of the 2021 Tajogaite eruption on La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain. GFZ Data Services. https://doi.org/10.5880/fidgeo.2024.002 (2024).

Code availability

The custom code used in this study is available upon request from the corresponding author.

Longpré, M. A. & Felpeto, A. Historical volcanism in the Canary Islands; part 1: A review of precursory and eruptive activity, eruption parameter estimates, and implications for hazard assessment. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 419 , 107363 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Castro, J. M. & Feisel, Y. Eruption of ultralow-viscosity basanite magma at Cumbre Vieja, La Palma, Canary Islands. Nat. Commun. 13 , 1–12 (2022).

Google Scholar  

Pankhurst, M. J. et al. Rapid response petrology for the opening eruptive phase of the 2021 Cumbre Vieja eruption, La Palma, Canary Islands. Volcanica 5 , 1–10 (2022).

Román, A. et al. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as a tool for hazard assessment: The 2021 eruption of Cumbre Vieja volcano, La Palma Island (Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 843 , 157092 (2022).

Civico, R. et al. High-resolution Digital Surface Model of the 2021 eruption deposit of Cumbre Vieja volcano, La Palma, Spain. Sci. Data 9 , 1–7 (2022).

Bonadonna, C. et al. Physical characterization of long‐lasting hybrid eruptions: The 2021 Tajogaite Eruption of Cumbre Vieja (La Palma, Canary Islands). J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 127 , e2022JB025302 (2022).

Romero, J. E. et al. The initial phase of the 2021 Cumbre Vieja ridge eruption (Canary Islands): Products and dynamics controlling edifice growth and collapse. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res ., 107642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2022.107642 (2022).

Taddeucci, J. et al. The explosive activity of the 2021 Tajogaite Eruption (La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain). Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems 24 , e2023GC010946 (2023).

Cimarelli, C. and Genareau, K. A review of volcanic electrification of the atmosphere and volcanic lightning. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res ., 107449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2021.107449 (2021).

Dickinson, J. et al. Fractoemission from fused silica and sodium silicate glasses. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A: Vac. Surf. Films 6 , 1084–1089 (1988).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

James, M., Lane, S. & Gilbert, J. S. Volcanic plume electrification: Experimental investigation of a fracture-charging mechanism. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 105 , 16641–16649 (2000).

Lacks, D. J. & Levandovsky, A. Effect of particle size distribution on the polarity of triboelectric charging in granular insulator systems. J. Electrostat. 65 , 107–112 (2007).

Cimarelli, C., Alatorre-Ibargüengoitia, M., Kueppers, U., Scheu, B. & Dingwell, D. B. Experimental generation of volcanic lightning. Geology 42 , 79–82 (2014).

Gaudin, D. & Cimarelli, C. The electrification of volcanic jets and controlling parameters: A laboratory study. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 513 , 69–80 (2019).

Harper, J. M., Cimarelli, C., Cigala, V., Kueppers, U. & Dufek, J. Charge injection into the atmosphere by explosive volcanic eruptions through triboelectrification and fragmentation charging. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 574 , 117162 (2021).

Prata, A. et al. Anak Krakatau triggers volcanic freezer in the upper troposphere. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–13 (2020).

Van Eaton, A. R. et al. Did ice-charging generate volcanic lightning during the 2016–2017 eruption of Bogoslof volcano, Alaska? Bull. Volcanol. 82 , 1–23 (2020).

Durant, A. J., Shaw, R., Rose, W. I., Mi, Y. & Ernst, G. Ice nucleation and overseeding of ice in volcanic clouds. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos . 113 , 1–13 (2008).

Maters, E. C., Cimarelli, C., Casas, A. S., Dingwell, D. B. & Murray, B. J. Volcanic ash ice-nucleating activity can be enhanced or depressed by ash-gas interaction in the eruption plume. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 551 , 116587 (2020).

Haney, M. M. et al. Characteristics of thunder and electromagnetic pulses from volcanic lightning at Bogoslof volcano, Alaska. Bull. Volcanol. 82 , 15 (2020).

Jarvis, P. A., Caldwell, T. G., Noble, C., Ogawa, Y. & Vagasky, C. Volcanic lightning reveals umbrella cloud dynamics of the 15 January 2022 Hunga volcano eruption, Tonga. Bull. Volcanol. 86 , 54 (2024).

Hargie, K. A. et al. Globally detected volcanic lightning and umbrella dynamics during the 2014 eruption of Kelud, Indonesia. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 382 , 81–91 (2019).

Vossen, C. E. J. et al. Long-term observation of electrical discharges during persistent Vulcanian activity. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 570 , 117084 (2021).

Vossen, C. E. J. et al. The electrical signature of mafic explosive eruptions at Stromboli volcano, Italy. Sci. Rep. 12 , 1–13 (2022).

Vossen, C. E. J. et al. Multiparametric measurements of the 2021 Tajogaite eruption on La Palma , Canary Islands, Spain. GFZ Data Services. https://doi.org/10.5880/fidgeo.2024.002 (2024).

Wilson, C. T. R. et al. Investigations on lighting discharges and on the electric field of thunderstorms. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A Contain. Pap. Math. Phys. Character 221 , 73–115 (1921).

Bennett, A. J. & Harrison, R. G. Lightning-induced extensive charge sheets provide long range electrostatic thunderstorm detection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 045003 (2013).

Van Eaton, A. R., Smith, C. M., Pavolonis, M. & Said, R. Eruption dynamics leading to a volcanic thunderstorm—The January 2020 eruption of Taal volcano, Philippines. Geology 50 , 491–495 (2021).

Ichihara, M., Mininni, P. D., Ravichandran, S., Cimarelli, C. & Vagasky, C. Multiphase turbulent flow explains lightning rings in volcanic plumes. Commun. Earth Environ. 4 , 417 (2023).

Van Eaton, A. R. et al. Lightning rings and gravity waves: Insights into the giant eruption plume from Tonga’s Hunga Volcano on 15 January 2022. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50 , e2022GL102341 (2023).

Behnke, S. A., Thomas, R. J., Edens, H. E., Krehbiel, P. R. & Rison, W. The 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull: Lightning and plume charge structure. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 119 , 833–859 (2014).

Mather, T. A. & Harrison, R. G. Electrification of volcanic plumes. Surv. Geophys. 27 , 387–432 (2006).

Cimarelli, C. et al. Multiparametric observation of volcanic lightning: Sakurajima Volcano, Japan. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43 , 4221–4228 (2016).

Thomas, R. J. et al. Lightning and electrical activity during the 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano: Chapter 25 in The 2006 Eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska . No. 1769-25. US Geological Survey, pp. 579–608 (2010).

Cimarelli, C., Behnke, S., Genareau, K., Harper, J. M. & Van Eaton, A. R. Volcanic electrification: recent advances and future perspectives. Bull. Volcanol. 84 , 78 (2022).

Cimarelli, C., Di Traglia, F. & Taddeucci, J. Basaltic scoria textures from a zoned conduit as precursors to violent Strombolian activity. Geology 38 , 439–442 (2010).

Namiki, A., Patrick, M. R., Manga, M. & Houghton, B. F. Brittle fragmentation by rapid gas separation in a Hawaiian fountain. Nat. Geosci. 14 , 242–247 (2021).

Di Renzo, M. & Urzay, J. Aerodynamic generation of electric fields in turbulence laden with charged inertial particles. Nat. Commun. 9 , 1676 (2018).

Taddeucci, J., Edmonds, M., Houghton, B., James, M. R. & Vergniolle, S. Hawaiian and Strombolian eruptions. In The Encyclopedia of Volcanoes , 485–503. Elsevier (2015).

Wilson, L., Sparks, R. S. J., Huang, T. C. & Watkins, N. D. The control of volcanic column heights by eruption energetics and dynamics. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 83 , 1829–1836 (1978).

Parfitt, E. A. & Wilson, L. Explosive volcanic eruptions—IX. The transition between Hawaiian-style lava fountaining and Strombolian explosive activity. Geophys. J. Int. 121 , 226–232 (1995).

Stern, S., Cimarelli, C., Gaudin, D., Scheu, B. & Dingwell, D. Electrification of experimental volcanic jets with varying water content and temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46 , 11136–11145 (2019).

Bennett, A. J. Electrostatic thunderstorm detection. Weather 72 , 51–54 (2017).

Gaudin, D. et al. Integrating puffing and explosions in a general scheme for Strombolian‐style activity. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 122 , 1860–1875 (2017a).

Gaudin, D. et al. Characteristics of puffing activity revealed by ground-based, thermal infrared imaging: the example of Stromboli Volcano (Italy). Bull. Volcanol. 79 , 1–15 (2017b).

D’Auria, L. et al. Rapid magma ascent beneath La Palma revealed by seismic tomography. Sci. Rep. 12 , 17654 (2022).

Arason, P., Bennett, A. J. & Burgin, L. E. Charge mechanism of volcanic lightning revealed during the 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 116 , B00C03 (2011).

Felpeto, A., Molina-Arias, A. J., Quirós, F., Pereda, J. & Díaz-Suárez, E. A. Measuring the height of the eruptive column during the 2021 eruption of Cumbre Vieja (La Palma Island, Canary Islands). In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts , pp. EGU22-9419 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Häberle from Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) of Munich for providing technical support and help with the electrical system for our sensor. The authors are thankful to I. Haarer and W. Stoiber for their help in collecting and visualising the standard atmospheric measurements and processing the thermal data. C.C. acknowledges financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) grant CI 254/2-1 and the ERC Consolidator Grant “VOLTA” under contract N° 864052. V.C. acknowledges financial support from project CI 306/2-1 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. C.V. acknowledges the LMUexcellent PostDoc Support Fund for covering part of the Open Access fee. The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers who helped improve the manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany

Caron E. J. Vossen, Corrado Cimarelli, Valeria Cigala & Ulrich Kueppers

Instituto Volcanológico de Canarias (INVOLCAN), 38320 La Laguna, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain

Luca D’Auria & José Barrancos

Instituto Tecnológico y de Energías Renovables (ITER). Polígono Industrial de Granadilla, s/n 38600 - Granadilla de Abona, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain

Bristol Industrial and Research Associates Ltd (Biral), Unit 8 Harbour Road Trading Estate, Portishead, Bristol, BS20 7BL, UK

Alec J. Bennett

Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Caron E.J. Vossen designed the study, provided the methodology and designed the software of the electrical sensor, carried out maintenance, collected, processed and analyzed the electrical and thermal data, visualised the results, and wrote the original draft. Corrado Cimarelli designed the study, installed the electrical sensor, and acquired funding. Luca D’Auria installed the seismic station and processed and analyzed the volcanic tremor measurements. Valeria Cigala recorded and processed the thermal data. Ulrich Kueppers installed the electrical sensor and collected the data. José Barrancos installed the electrical sensor, carried out maintenance, and collected the data. Alec J. Bennett provided the methodology and designed the software of the electrical sensor. All authors revised the manuscript and contributed to the discussion.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caron E. J. Vossen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Earth & Environment thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Domenico Doronzo, Joe Aslin, Heike Langenberg. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Open Access 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://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Vossen, C.E.J., Cimarelli, C., D’Auria, L. et al. Explosive eruption style modulates volcanic electrification signals. Commun Earth Environ 5 , 367 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01520-6

Download citation

Received : 21 November 2023

Accepted : 20 June 2024

Published : 09 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01520-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.