Abstract

In June 2019, the Raikoke volcano, Kuril Islands, emitted 0.4–1.8 × 109 kg of very fine ash and 1–2 × 109 kg of SO2 up to 14 km into the atmosphere. The eruption was characterized by several phases or puffs of different duration and eruption heights. Resolving such complex eruption dynamics is required for precise volcanic plume dispersion forecasts. To address this issue, we coupled the atmospheric model system ICON-ART (ICOsahedral Nonhydrostatic – Aerosols and Reactive Trace gases) with the 1-D plume model FPlume to calculate the eruption source parameters (ESPs) online. The main inputs are the plume heights for the different eruption phases that are geometrically derived from satellite data. An empirical relationship is used to derive the amount of very fine ash (particles < 32 µm), which is relevant for long range transport in the atmosphere. On the first day after the onset of the eruption, the modeled ash loading agrees very well with the ash loading estimated from AHI (Advanced Himawari Imager) observations due to the resolution of the eruption phases and the online treatment of the ESPs. In later hours, aerosol dynamical processes (nucleation, condensation, coagulation) explain the loss of ash in the atmosphere in agreement with the observations. However, a direct comparison is partly hampered by water and ice clouds overlapping the ash cloud in the observations. We compared 6-hourly means of model and AHI data with respect to the structure, amplitude, and location (SAL-method) to further validate the simulated dispersion of SO2 and ash. In the beginning, the structure and amplitude values differed largely because the dense ash cloud leads to an underestimation of the SO2 amount in the satellite data. On the second and third day, the SAL values are close to zero for all parameters indicating a very good agreement of model and observations. Furthermore, we found a separation of the ash and SO2 plume after one day due to particle sedimentation, chemistry, and aerosol-radiation interaction. The results confirm that coupling the atmospheric model system and plume model enables detailed treatment of the plume dynamics (phases and ESPs) and leads to significant improvement of the ash and SO2 dispersion forecast. This approach can benefit the operational forecast of ash and SO2 especially in case of complex and non-continuous volcanic eruptions like the Raikoke 2019.

Highlights

  • Explosive volcanic eruptions inject particulate matter and gases into the atmosphere, which are dispersed by atmospheric 25 transport processes

  • On the first day after the onset of the eruption, the modeled ash loading agrees very well with the ash loading estimated from AHI (Advanced Himawari Imager) observations due to the resolution of the eruption phases and the online treatment of the eruption source parameters (ESPs). 10 In later hours, aerosol dynamical processes explain the loss of ash in the atmosphere in agreement with the observations

  • It has been shown that eruption source parameters (ESP) such as mass eruption rate (MER), plume 35 height, emission profile, and the duration of the eruption can strongly influence the quality of the forecast of the spatial distribution of the volcanogenic gases and particles (e.g., Harvey et al, 2018; Scollo et al, 2008)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Explosive volcanic eruptions inject particulate matter and gases into the atmosphere, which are dispersed by atmospheric 25 transport processes. All parametrizations of the ESP have in commom that the volcanic cloud dispersion remains decoupled from unresolved volcanic eruption dynamics including the influence of the atmosphere on the emission height This accounts for large uncertainties in modeling studies at regional to global scales (Textor et al, 2005; Timmreck, 2012; von Savigny et al, 2020). Marti et al (2017) overcame this issue by coupling the NMMB-MONARCH-ASH transport model (Nonhydrostatic Multiscale Model on the B-grid – Multiscale Online Nonhydrostatic AtmospheRe CHemistry 50 model – ASH) with the 1D plume model FPlume, which calculates the MER and the mass distribution in the column online They described the gravitational spreading of the umbrella cloud by the model of Costa et al (2013). They highlighted 55 more concentrated ash concentrations in the horizontal and vertical scale, which more realistically represents the horizontal dispersion compared to parameterized MERs

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call