According to a news report an early result from a field study into Öræfajökull volcano eruptions in 1362 and 1727 suggest that those eruptions where possibly larger then previously thought.
According to the research so far the following has been discovered.
- Volcano ash layers from the eruption 1362 are 3 meters thick. They where thought be around 0,5 meters thick. This suggests that the eruption in 1362 was larger than previously thought.
- The craters from the eruption 1727 have been found. That eruption was close to the Fimmvörðuháls eruption in Eyjafjallajökull volcano in 2010 (not under glacier eruption).
- Pictures of the magma that has been found suggest that both eruptions where highly felsic (rhyolitic) type and high in gas content. There are also high in crystals (known as crystallization of magma). What type of crystals is not known at the moment (not mentioned in the news).
That fact does explain the current process of earthquakes in Öræfajökull volcano and why earthquake activity drops down to almost nothing every few weeks in Öræfajökull volcano. The magma in Öræfajökull volcano is slow moving and there is a lot of it. Current volume is around the same that started the eruption in Eyjafjallajökull volcano in 2010 (there are massive differences between the two, so comparing the volcanoes is subject to limitations).
Icelandic News from Vísir.is
Fyrri eldgos í Öræfajökli mun öflugri en áður var talið (Vísir.is, Video, images, Icelandic only)
Please remember to support my work with donations. Everything helps. Thanks for the support. 🙂
According to an new study into the Eyjafjallajökull volcano ash cloud. It appears that more volcano ash was up in the air then originally estimated. The estimation now is that the amount of volcano ash was around 100 times more then expected during the eruption. This has serious implications to air travel in the future if there is a repeat of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption scenario. But most of Eyjafjallajökull volcano ash was small and fine volcano ash that did stay long time up in the air.
This is the conclusion in a study that was made by Mark Woodhouse (and more people) and is published in Journal of Geophysical Research. Sadly I do not have access to this study (I am too poor to do so). So I an only repeat what the Rúv News is saying about this study.
News and links
Öskufallið var meira en við héldum (Rúv.is, Icelandic)
Journal of Geophysical Research
Iceland government did approve today to increase funding for research into Iceland volcanoes. But this is also part of a plan for a risk assessment for volcanoes in Iceland. But it is expected that this research is going to take 15 to 20 years. Funding has already been increased to Icelandic Met Office by grands from ICAO (among other I think, but I do not have it confirmed). But this is a direct response to the fact that Eyjafjallajökull volcano and Grímsfjall volcano have erupted in short time span (11 months apart).
But the Icelandic government is expecting a eruption in Grímsfjall volcano every two to seven years. But it is also expecting eruptions in Bárðarbunga volcano following this increased activity in Grímsfjall volcano. But eruption period often follow in Bárðarbunga volcano when activity increases in Grímsfjall volcano.
First step of this research is going to take three years to finish. But the news does not say what they are going to cover in this research. This risk assessment is done by the standards of U.N and WMO.
Icelandic News about this.
Hefja vinnu við hættumat fyrir eldgos – tekur 15 til 20 ár í heildina (Vísir.is, Icelandic)
I am not going to make this a long blog post.
I know that many of you find that I have been unfair when it comes to deal with certain ideas about geology and how it works. The truth however is that this was a lot more then just a idea, or a hypothesis. The claim was that “evidence” had been found for the claim to support. But from what I did see, no evidence where provided in support of the claim. To to be fair, it was sad that this idea might be wrong and wrong it was in my opinion.
This is what I call bad science. It is something that is not going to work and is never going to. The scientific method (wiki) is well established way of proofing claims and ideas.
For instance, all that I do in terms of geology and other fields of science fall all under this process. If I fail it is a important step, because it at least gave me a result to work with. When doing science, it is important to life with the fact not everything that is done is going to work up, or even get that far before it fails so spectacular that they did notice in the next lab over.
I do not dismiss everything that I read. But I am going to dismiss it if no evidence is provided with the claim in question. I my self is working on few ideas, that I have at least started from start up around 40 to 50 times on times. Just because it failed my test and did not fit the data that was observed.
This is how progress is made. With hard work and good scientific method. What is not progress is Pseudoscience (wiki) that in fact return nothing in the short and long term. I have for too long seen this happens on the internet and I am not going to let this happen to any of my blogs that deal with science topics (including this one here. It is a slow, slow blog).
Ideas are good and all that. Just tell the world if you have any data or not when you put your idea forward.
I also want to point out this two articles here. They are not science in them self. But they might explains one or two things about why I am strict on this matter and with the comments. But I want to keep this blog clean and good for all my readers.
5 Ways to Stop Trolls From Killing the Internet (Cracked.com)
Internet Argument Techniques (Cracked.com)
Thanks for the understanding.