24 comments on “Volcán TROMEN – Argentina

  1. Howdy Granyia – fascinating post. I am amazed with the local penchant to give a discrete name to every single high point on a volcano. We saw it with Nevados de Chillan. The Russians do the same thing on Kamchatka. Difficult to keep up as there are so very many high points. Cheers –

    Like

  2. Thank you both, Tom and agimarc! And drat, I have looked about three times at the cams today, only to find Popo, all of Kamchatka and La Reunion completely wrapped in clouds, then I went downtown… we should have a device on our mobile phones that makes them ring when a volcano starts erupting and opens the appropriate webcam view ! 😀

    What else happened today? Last night, Piton de Fournaise considerably incresed its activity, but nobody could see it for fog or vog (left image is from yesterday’s fountaining). Then suddenly, it decided it has had enough – and stopped. Completely.

    In Central-America, Turrialba and Santiaguito each had ash explosions again:

    Like

  3. Over the weekend (Sat/Sun) 14 earthquakes happened in the Bárðarbunga area (Iceland), two of them tonight within half an hour: a M 3.8 and a M 3.7. I went to Jon Frimann’s page to see his opinion about them. Jon says, there is nothing out of the usual with them, and he doesn’t “expect this to change until it does” – well, I fully agree with him on that point.

    Like

  4. Just if you wonder… Klyuchevskoy is still going strong! Report 15/9: Explosive-effusive eruption of the volcano continues: there are bursts of volcanic bombs above the summit crater and above the cinder cone into Apakhonchich chute, and strong gas-steam activity of two volcanic centers with emission of different amounts of ash, and the effusing of lava flows along Apakhonchich chute at the eastern flank of the volcano, and at the south-western its flank. On satellite, a large bright thermal anomaly was observed in the area of the volcano all week; on 10, 13 and 15 September explosions sent ash up to 7 km a.s.l. and ash plumes extended for about 50 km to the south-east and north-east from the volcano.

    Like

  5. That reminds me of one of my favorite volcano-questions: I have learnt what forces can cause the onset of an eruption – but what makes them last for either a brief stint of a few days or a many-month-long period (in the same volcano)? Sure, pressure, temperature, composition play a role, but what exactly causes the difference? Does the magma reservoir underneath change size all the time? Or, if exhausted, does sometimes more magma come up from the mantle, and sometimes not, and if so, why?

    Like

    • Hi Bruce, no, you were right, the last message by RSN on Twitter was 2 hours ago, saying (roughly): “From 9:48 am began an eruption of greater size to the ones observed during the morning, still is in course #volcánTurrialba”

      Like

        • From Twitter: Ash accumulation from Turrialba volcano is already affecting streams and rivers. So in the Toro Amarillo River near Guapiles with increased acidity and gray mud on the banks. This could result in impairment to aquatic life, agriculture and livestock that obtain water from this river, as had happened in 1865. And the last image from the webcam is this:

          (What do we need electron-microscopes for, if we get it all on webcam? 😉 )

          Like

  6. Seven international volcanologists are travelling in PNG these days to monitor and research active volcanoes of New Britain and Bougainville. Tough job, I think, and great, as there is so little monitoring done. They tweeted an actual image of Bagana:

    Like

  7. Yesterday, 375 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change. The letter warns that the consequences of opting out of the Paris agreement would be severe and long-lasting for our planet’s climate and for the international credibility of the United States.

    http://responsiblescientists.org/

    Like

      • Hi agimarc, not to unleash a discussion about GW, which is done to overkill in other places, but just a very personal note concerning myself:
        I am not a climate scientist, so I (plus 99.9% of the world’s population) am not in a position to valuate such scientific findings. I did read the essay you linked to, but to me it was just another scientific text. What is that to me? Should I go and measure the temperatures myself and do some modelling to either confirm or dismiss their findings? Or am I required just to *believe* what they say?
        Common sense tells me that, if there is only a chance that one party could be right and GW could happen, then I will do anything I can to prevent it. I have family, grandchildren, and I don’t want them to perish in storms, floods, heat or whatever. Well, there is a chance the GW party *could* be right, so I am on their side. That is what I understand by “responsible”. To just sit hands in lap and wait who turns out to be right I would call “irresponsible”, because it could be too late then.

        And, btw., what is wrong with stopping to pollute the world anyway?

        Like

        • Howdy Granyia –

          I am allowed a single response and will stop after this.

          The WUWT site has a variety of stuff on it. All highly educational. If nothing else you will get a feel for the sheer complexity of what they are trying to predict.

          Personal from my end. I am old enough to remember the Next Great Ice Age scare of the 1970s. Now manmade global warming due to CO2 emissions is the current scare. My education is engineering so I pay close attention to data. When I see government-funded data hidden from the public, changed after the fact, or simply made up, I start worrying. I also read a large chunk of the Harry Read Me e-mails out of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and was appalled. If this is real, why do they have to make stuff up? NOAA has been massaging global temperature data for two decades – mostly decreasing historic temps and increasing newer. This is done to show an upward trend.

          Final point, satellite data has the global temperature stable, unchanged for the last 18 years. During that entire time CO2 levels in the atmosphere have slowly increased. The instant temperature increases decoupled from CO2 levels increases was the instant the theory was disproven. And throughout this entire argument, nobody talks about the sun, which is at the moment pretty quiet, which also worries me.

          I personally and professionally reject the notion that CO2 is a pollutant. It is plant food, required for life on this planet. There are geologic CO2 levels 10 times current levels (over 4,000 ppm) and life did just fine.

          Like you, I want to clean things up, but believe the best way to do it is to make as many people as possible on this planet wealthy, free and with access to unlimited amounts of reliable energy. Throughout history, the richer we get, the cleaner we get. Not a fan of the precautionary principle, as it is almost always used as an excuse for government intervention of some sort. But that’s just me. Cheers –

          Like

  8. Turrialba erupting again this morning (11:27UTC). From the helicorders, I suspects its been going on for a while already, but the visibility has been low and the webcam near the crater has been offline for a while.

    Like

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s