DOCSLIB.ORG

Gmd-14-409-2021.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gmd-14-409-2021.Pdf Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 409–436, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-409-2021 © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. FALL3D-8.0: a computational model for atmospheric transport and deposition of particles, aerosols and radionuclides – Part 2: Model validation Andrew T. Prata1, Leonardo Mingari1, Arnau Folch1, Giovanni Macedonio2, and Antonio Costa3 1Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), Barcelona, Spain 2Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Osservatorio Vesuviano, Naples, Italy 3Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy Correspondence: Andrew T. Prata ([email protected]) Received: 27 May 2020 – Discussion started: 17 June 2020 Revised: 4 November 2020 – Accepted: 19 November 2020 – Published: 25 January 2021 Abstract. This paper presents model validation results for and FMS scores greater than 0.40 indicate acceptable agree- the latest version release of the FALL3D atmospheric trans- ment with satellite retrievals of volcanic ash and SO2. In ad- port model. The code has been redesigned from scratch to dition, we show very good agreement, across several orders incorporate different categories of species and to overcome of magnitude, between the model and observations for the legacy issues that precluded its preparation towards extreme- 2013 Mt. Etna and 1986 Chernobyl case studies. Our results, scale computing. The model validation is based on the new along with the validation datasets provided in the publicly FALL3D-8.0 test suite, which comprises a set of four real available test suite, form the basis for future improvements case studies that encapsulate the major features of the model; to FALL3D (version 8 or later) and also allow for model in- namely, the simulation of long-range fine volcanic ash dis- tercomparison studies. persal, volcanic SO2 dispersal, tephra fallout deposits and the dispersal and deposition of radionuclides. The first two test suite cases (i.e. the June 2011 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle ash cloud and the June 2019 Raikoke SO2 cloud) are val- 1 Introduction idated against geostationary satellite retrievals and demon- strate the new FALL3D data insertion scheme. The metrics FALL3D-8.0 is the latest major version release of FALL3D used to validate the volcanic ash and SO2 simulations are the (Costa et al., 2006; Folch et al., 2009), an open-source code structure, amplitude and location (SAL) metric and the figure with a 15-yearC track record and a growing number of of merit in space (FMS). The other two test suite cases (i.e. users in the volcanological and atmospheric science com- the February 2013 Mt. Etna ash cloud and associated tephra munities. A companion paper (Folch et al., 2020) details fallout deposit, and the dispersal of radionuclides resulting the physics and the novel numerical implementation of the from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident) are validated with code, which has been redesigned and rewritten from scratch scattered ground-based observations of deposit load and lo- in the framework of the EU Centre of Excellence for Ex- cal particle grain size distributions and with measurements ascale in Solid Earth (ChEESE). From the point of view from the Radioactivity Environmental Monitoring database. of model physics, a relevant improvement in the new ver- For validation of tephra deposit loads and radionuclides, we sion (v8.x) has been the generalisation of the code to deal use two variants of the normalised root-mean-square error with atmospheric species other than tephra including other metric. We find that FALL3D-8.0 simulations initialised with types of particles (e.g. mineral dust), gases and radionuclides data insertion consistently improve agreement with satellite (see Table 3 in Folch et al., 2020, for details). These differ- retrievals at all lead times up to 48 h for both volcanic ash ent categories and subcategories of species can be simulated and SO2 simulations. In general, SAL scores lower than 1.5 using independent sets of bins that allow for dedicated pa- Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 410 A. T. Prata et al.: FALL3D-8.0 – Part 2 rameterisations for physics, emissions (source terms) and in- ically passed when substantial model updates in the master teractions among bins (e.g. aggregation, chemical reactions, branch of the code are committed to the repository and, es- radioactive decay). In FALL3D, “tephra” species are subdi- sentially, contain idealised 1-D or 2-D cases with known an- vided into four subcategories, depending on particle diame- alytical solutions for verification purposes (see, e.g. Figs. 3, ter, d (Folch et al., 2020): (i) fine ash (d ≤ 64µm), (ii) coarse 4 and 5 in Folch et al., 2020). In contrast, the test suite in- ash (64 µm < d ≤ 2 mm), (iii) lapilli (2 mm < d ≤ 64 mm) cludes larger-size, real-case simulations aimed at model vali- and (iv) bomb (d > 64 mm). In terms of model performance, dation. Model users can download the public test suite repos- the new model version contains a much more accurate and itory files to run the model and to check whether it has been less diffusive solver, as well as a better memory management properly installed and configured on their local machines. and parallelisation strategy that notably outperforms the scal- This paper presents the four cases from the FALL3D-8.0 test ability and the computing times of the precedent code ver- suite listed in Table1; namely, Puyehue-2011 (simulation of sion (v7.x) (Folch et al., 2020). This paper complements the the June 2011 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle ash cloud), Raikoke- Folch et al.(2020) companion paper by presenting a detailed 2019 (simulation of the June 2019 Raikoke SO2 cloud), set of validation examples, all included in the new test suite Etna-2013 (simulation of the 23 February 2013 Mt. Etna of the code. This paper also contains some novel aspects re- ash cloud and related tephra fallout deposit) and Chernobyl- garding geostationary satellite detection and retrieval of vol- 1986 (simulation of the dispersal and deposition of radionu- canic ash (AppendixA) and SO 2 (AppendixB), as well as the clides resulting from the April 1986 Chernobyl nuclear acci- FALL3D-8.0 data insertion methodology. To furnish the ini- dent). Note that the names of the validation cases are shown tial model condition required for data insertion, the satellite in bold throughout this paper. The FALL3D-8.0 test suite retrievals are collocated with lidar measurements of cloud- repository contains independent folders (one per validation top height and thickness from the CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol case). All case folders have the same subfolder structure: Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation) platform – InputFiles. This subfolder contains all the necessary in- (Winker et al., 2009). The data insertion scheme is a prelim- put files to run the case. The only exception is mete- inary step towards model data assimilation using ensembles, orological data because these typically involve substan- a novel functionality currently under development. tially large files (tens of gigabytes) that make the storage The paper is organised as follows. Section2 provides an and the transfer to/from the GitLab public repository un- overview of the model test suite, detailing the file structure practical/unfeasible. and contents for each of the four case studies considered for validating and testing FALL3D-8.0. Section3 provides a de- – Utils/Meteo. This subfolder contains all the necessary scription of each of the events making up the test suite, which files to obtain meteorological data depending on the me- include simulations of the June 2011 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle teorological driver (for possible options, see Table 12 ash cloud, the June 2019 Raikoke SO2 cloud, the February in Folch et al., 2020). For global datasets such as the 2013 Mt. Etna ash cloud and associated tephra fallout de- ERA5 dataset (Copernicus Climate Change Service, posit, and the dispersal of radionuclides resulting from the 2017) used in the Puyehue-2011 case, Python and shell 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. The datasets used for val- scripts are provided so that the user can download and idation and the FALL3D model configurations used in each merge meteorological data consistently with the SetDbs case are also contained in Sect.3. Section4 describes the val- pre-process task (see Sect. 5 in Folch et al., 2020). For idation metrics, which include the structure, amplitude and mesoscale datasets (e.g. the WRF-ARW dataset used in location (SAL) metric (Wernli et al., 2008) and the figure of the Etna-2013 case), the subfolder includes the meteo- merit in space (FMS; Galmarini et al., 2010; Wilkins et al., rological model “namelists” and scripts to download the 2016) to quantitatively compare model results with satellite global data driving the corresponding mesoscale model retrievals, along with the root-mean-square error (RMSE) for simulation. validation of the ground deposit simulations of tephra and ra- – Utils/Validation. This subfolder contains all the nec- dionuclides. Section5 presents a detailed discussion of the essary files to validate the FALL3D-8.0 model execu- validation results for the four test suite cases. Finally, Sect.6 tion results, including a file with the expected validation presents the conclusions of the paper and outlines the next metric results. steps in terms of model development and applications. Tables2 and3 list the files in the test suite for the Puyehue-2011 (Sect. 3.1) and the Etna-2013 (Sect. 3.3) 2 The FALL3D-8.0 test suite cases, respectively. The Raikoke-2019 (Sect. 3.2) and Chernobyl-1986 (Sect. 3.4) filenames look very similar to FALL3D-8.0 includes both a benchmark and a test suite. The the Puyehue-2011 and Etna-2013 filenames and are not ex- benchmark suite consists of a series of non-public small-case plicitly shown here.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 30-Year Lidar Observations of the Stratospheric Aerosol Layer State Over Tomsk (Western Siberia, Russia) Vladimir V
    Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., doi:10.5194/acp-2016-792, 2016 Manuscript under review for journal Atmos. Chem. Phys. Published: 13 October 2016 c Author(s) 2016. CC-BY 3.0 License. 30-year lidar observations of the stratospheric aerosol layer state over Tomsk (Western Siberia, Russia) Vladimir V. Zuev1,2,3, Vladimir D. Burlakov4, Aleksei V. Nevzorov4, Vladimir L. Pravdin1, Ekaterina S. Savelieva1, and Vladislav V. Gerasimov1,2 5 1Institute of Monitoring of Climatic and Ecological Systems SB RAS, Tomsk, 634055, Russia 2Tomsk State University, Tomsk, 634050, Russia 3Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, 634050, Russia 4V.E. Zuev Institute of Atmospheric Optics SB RAS, Tomsk, 634055, Russia Correspondence to: Vladislav V. Gerasimov ([email protected]) 10 Abstract. There are only four lidar stations in the world, which have almost continuously performed observations of the stratospheric aerosol layer (SAL) state for over the last 30 years. The longest time series of the SAL lidar measurements have been accumulated at the Mauna Loa Observatory (Hawaii) since 1973, the NASA Langley Research Center (Hampton, Virginia) since 1974, and Garmisch-Partenkirchen (Germany) since 1976. The fourth lidar station we present started to perform routine observations of the SAL parameters in Tomsk (56.48 N, 85.05 E, Western Siberia, Russia) in 1986. In this 15 paper, we mainly focus on and discuss the stratospheric background period from 2000 to 2005 and the causes of the SAL perturbations over Tomsk in the 2006–2015 period. During the last decade, volcanic aerosol plumes from tropical Mt. Manam, Soufriere Hills, Rabaul, Merapi, Nabro, and Kelut, and extratropical (northern) Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Interagency Operating Plan for Volcanic Ash Episodes
    Alaska Interagency Operating Plan for Volcanic Ash Episodes August 1, 2011 COVER PHOTO: Ash, gas, and water vapor cloud from Redoubt volcano as seen from Cannery Road in Kenai, Alaska on March 31, 2009. Photograph by Neil Sutton, used with permission. Alaska Interagency Operating Plan for Volcanic Ash Episodes August 1, 2011 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Integrated Response to Volcanic Ash ....................................................................... 3 1.2 Data Collection and Processing ................................................................................ 4 1.3 Information Management and Coordination .............................................................. 4 1.4 Warning Dissemination ............................................................................................. 5 2.0 Responsibilities of the Participating Agencies ........................................................... 5 2.1 DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (DHS&EM) ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 ALASKA VOLCANO OBSERVATORY (AVO) ........................................................... 6 2.2.1 Organization ...................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 General Operational Procedures ...................................................................... 8
    [Show full text]
  • Articles Into the Strato- for Example (Mills Et Al., 2016)
    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 3067–3081, 2017 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/3067/2017/ doi:10.5194/acp-17-3067-2017 © Author(s) 2017. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 30-year lidar observations of the stratospheric aerosol layer state over Tomsk (Western Siberia, Russia) Vladimir V. Zuev1,2,3, Vladimir D. Burlakov4, Aleksei V. Nevzorov4, Vladimir L. Pravdin1, Ekaterina S. Savelieva1, and Vladislav V. Gerasimov1,2 1Institute of Monitoring of Climatic and Ecological Systems SB RAS, Tomsk, 634055, Russia 2Tomsk State University, Tomsk, 634050, Russia 3Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, 634050, Russia 4V.E. Zuev Institute of Atmospheric Optics SB RAS, Tomsk, 634055, Russia Correspondence to: Vladislav V. Gerasimov ([email protected]) Received: 1 September 2016 – Discussion started: 13 October 2016 Revised: 20 January 2017 – Accepted: 5 February 2017 – Published: 28 February 2017 Abstract. There are only four lidar stations in the world role of both tropical and northern volcanic eruptions in vol- which have almost continuously performed observations of canogenic aerosol loading of the midlatitude stratosphere is the stratospheric aerosol layer (SAL) state over the last also discussed. In addition to volcanoes, we considered other 30 years. The longest time series of the SAL lidar mea- possible causes of the SAL perturbations over Tomsk, i.e., surements have been accumulated at the Mauna Loa Obser- the polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) events and smoke plumes vatory (Hawaii) since 1973, the NASA Langley Research from strong forest fires. At least two PSC events were de- Center (Hampton, Virginia) since 1974, and Garmisch- tected in 1995 and 2007. We also make an assumption that Partenkirchen (Germany) since 1976.
    [Show full text]
  • Book of Abstracts
    PICES-2009 Understanding ecosystem dynamics and pursuing ecosystem approaches to management North Pacific Marine Science Organization October 23 – November 1, 2009 Jeju, Republic of Korea Table of Contents Notes for Guidance � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � v Meeting Timetable � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �vi Keynote Lecture � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1 Schedules and Abstracts S1: Science Board Symposium Understanding ecosystem dynamics and pursuing ecosystem approaches to management � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 5 S2: FIS Topic Session Ecosystem-based approaches for the assessment of fisheries under data-limited situations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 23 S3: FIS/BIO Topic Session Early life stages of marine resources as indicators of climate variability and ecosystem resilience � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 35 S4: MEQ Topic Session Mitigation of harmful algal blooms � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 51 S5: MEQ Topic Session The role of submerged aquatic vegetation in the context of climate change
    [Show full text]
  • Global Volcanic Earthquake Swarm Database 1979-1989
    U- S- Department of the Interior U. S. Geological Survey GLOBAL VOLCANIC EARTHQUAKE SWARM DATABASE 1979-1989 by John P. Benoit1 '2 and Stephen R. McNutt1 '2 Open-File Report 96-69 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, product, of firm names is for the descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1 Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks 903 Koyukuk Dr. P.O. Box 757320 Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7320 2 Alaska Volcano Observatory 1996 CONTENTS DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE GLOBAL VOLCANIC EARTHQUAKE SWARM DATABASE...................................................................................................^^ INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................A DATABASE STRUCTURE AND D£5c/?/pr/o^...................................................................................................................5 Volcano Table ....................................................................................................................................................6 Earthquake Swarm Table....................................................................................................................................6 Eruption Table ...................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Interagency Operating Plan for Volcanic Ash Episodes
    Alaska Interagency Operating Plan for Volcanic Ash Episodes April 1, 2004 Alaska Interagency Operating Plan for Volcanic Ash Episodes April 1, 2004 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................1 1.1 INTEGRATED RESPONSE TO VOLCANIC ASH ..............................1 1.2 DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING ..................................2 1.3 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ........................2 1.4 DISTRIBUTION AND DISSEMINATION ...................................3 2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES ...........................................3 2.1 DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (DHS&EM) . 3 2.2 ALASKA VOLCANO OBSERVATORY (AVO) .................................4 2.2.1 ORGANIZATION .................................................4 2.2.2 GENERAL OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES ..............................5 2.2.2.1 EARLY ERUPTION PREDICTION, WARNING & CALL-DOWN: SEISMICALLY INSTRUMENTED VOLCANOES ......................................6 2.2.2.1.1 KAMCHATKAN VOLCANIC ERUPTION RESPONSE TEAM (KVERT) . 8 2.2.2.2 SEISMICALLY UNMONITORED VOLCANOES ...........................9 2.2.2.3 UPDATES AND INFORMATION RELEASES .............................9 2.2.2.4 COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES ...........................10 2.2.2.5 LEVEL OF CONCERN COLOR CODE SYSTEM ..........................10 2.2.2.6 DESIGNATION OF AUTHORITY ....................................12 2.3 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE .............................................12 2.3.1 PROCEDURES .................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • 75 Quaternary Eruptive History of Sarychev Peak Volcano, Matua Island, Kuril Islands
    75 Quaternary eruptive history of Sarychev Peak volcano, Matua Island, Kuril Islands A.V. Degterev1, A.V. Rybin1, I.V. Melekescev2, N.G. Razjigaeva3 1Institute of Marine Geology and Geophysics FEB RAS 2Institute of volcanology and seismology FEB RAS 3Pacific Institute of Geography FEB RAS Eruptive history of Quaternary volcanoes of the Kurile Island Arc including active and potentially active are now studied poorly. The researches on reconstruction of Pleistocene-Holocene volcanism were done only in southern (Kunashir, Iturup) and northern (Paramushir, Onekotan) parts of the arc. So, the Central Kurile Islands is a real “white spot”- remote and almost inaccessible region. Strong explosive-effusive eruption of Sarychev Peak volcano (fig. 1) in June 2009 initiated the beginning of special geology-volcanological works directed to detailed reconstruction of eruptive history of this volcano (Levin at el. 2010). Sarychev Peak volcano (coordinates 48°05′24.49″ N. and 153°12′08.18″ E; absolute height 1446 m) represents intercalderal stratovolcano with summit crater (fig. 1). The volcano is located in caldera (D=3.5-4 km) of ancient (probably Pleistocene age) volcano Matua formed north-western part of the island (the Central Kurile Islands) (Gorshkov 1967; Laverov at el. 2005). Sarychev Peak volcano is one of the active volcanoes of the Kurile Arc; it is fixed not less than 10 its eruptions: in 1760th, 1878-1879, 1923, 1928, 1930, 1946, 1954, 1960, 1976, 2009 years. (Andreev at el., 1978; 1967; Levin at el. 2010; Shilov, 1962; Rybin et al., 2011). The works on study of eruptive history of Sarychev Peak volcano included the complex of geologo- and geomorphologic–volcanological researches under the leading role of tephrachronology (Thorainsson, 1944; Braitseva at el., 1978).
    [Show full text]
  • Article Radius, and Mass Quantitative Geophysical Analysis
    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 12189–12206, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12189-2021 © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Geometric estimation of volcanic eruption column height from GOES-R near-limb imagery – Part 1: Methodology Ákos Horváth1, James L. Carr2, Olga A. Girina3, Dong L. Wu4, Alexey A. Bril5, Alexey A. Mazurov5, Dmitry V. Melnikov3, Gholam Ali Hoshyaripour6, and Stefan A. Buehler1 1Meteorological Institute, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany 2Carr Astronautics, Greenbelt, MD, USA 3Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IVS FEB RAS), Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia 4NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA 5Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SRI RAS), Moscow, Russia 6Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany Correspondence: Ákos Horváth ([email protected], [email protected]) Received: 21 February 2021 – Discussion started: 23 March 2021 Revised: 2 July 2021 – Accepted: 6 July 2021 – Published: 16 August 2021 Abstract. A geometric technique is introduced to estimate atmospheric dispersion models, which require the eruptive the height of volcanic eruption columns using the gener- source parameters, especially plume height and the mass ally discarded near-limb portion of geostationary imagery. eruption rate (MER), as key inputs (Peterson et al., 2015). Such oblique observations facilitate a height-by-angle esti- Plume height and MER are related by dynamics, and the lat- mation method by offering close-to-orthogonal side views ter scales approximately as the fourth power of the former.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Technologies for the Analyzing of Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands Volcanoes Activity in 2019-2020
    Information Technologies for the Analyzing of Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands Volcanoes Activity in 2019-2020 Olga Girinaa, Evgeniy Loupianb, Aleksei Sorokinc, Iraida Romanovaa, Dmitry Melnikova, Alexander Manevicha, Anton Nuzhdaeva, Sergey Bartalevb, Alexander Kashnitskiib, Ivan Uvarovb, Sergey Korolevc, Sergey Malkovskyc and Lyubov Kramarevad a Institute of Volcanology and Seismology FEB RAS, KVERT, 9 Piipblvd.,Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky,683006, Russia b Space Research Institute RAS, 38/32 Profsoyuznaya st., Moscow, 117997, Russia c Computing Center FEB RAS, 65 Kim Yu Chen st., Khabarovsk,680000, Russia d Far Eastern Center of Planeta Research Center for Space Hydrometeorology,18 Lenin st., Khabarovsk,680673, Russia Abstract The work is devoted to the activity analysis of Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands volcanoes in 2019-2020.The activity of the volcanoes was estimated based on the processing of data from daily satellite monitoring carried out using the information system “Remote monitoring of Kamchatkan and the Kuriles volcanoes activity (VolSatView)”.The activity of the Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands volcanoes considered based on the analysis of their thermal anomalies. Analysis of the characteristics of thermal anomalies over volcanoes was carried out in KVERT IS. Analysis of the temperature of thermal anomalies of volcanoes in the Kuril-Kamchatka region in 2019-2020 shows a significantly higher activity of the Kamchatka volcanoes in comparison with the Kuril volcanoes. Keywords 1 IS VolSatView, satellite data, thermal anomaly, volcano, eruption, activity, Kamchatka, Kuril Islands 1. Introduction Explosive volcanic eruptions are the most dangerous for the population and aviation due to the high energetics of the volcanic process and their poor predictability. There are 68 active volcanoes in Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands, there are annually explosive, effusive and extrusive eruptions of 4-6 volcanoes, during which tons of volcanogenic products in the form of lava, pyroclastics, volcanic gases and aerosols come to the Earth's surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Geothermal Potential of the Cascade and Aleutian Arcs, with Ranking of Individual Volcanic Centers for Their Potential to Host Electricity-Grade Reservoirs
    DE-EE0006725 ATLAS Geosciences Inc FY2016, Final Report, Phase I Final Research Performance Report Federal Agency and Organization: DOE EERE – Geothermal Technologies Program Recipient Organization: ATLAS Geosciences Inc DUNS Number: 078451191 Recipient Address: 3372 Skyline View Dr Reno, NV 89509 Award Number: DE-EE0006725 Project Title: Geothermal Potential of the Cascade and Aleutian Arcs, with Ranking of Individual Volcanic Centers for their Potential to Host Electricity-Grade Reservoirs Project Period: 10/1/14 – 10/31/15 Principal Investigator: Lisa Shevenell President [email protected] 775-240-7323 Report Submitted by: Lisa Shevenell Date of Report Submission: October 16, 2015 Reporting Period: September 1, 2014 through October 15, 2015 Report Frequency: Final Report Project Partners: Cumming Geoscience (William Cumming) – cost share partner GEODE (Glenn Melosh) – cost share partner University of Nevada, Reno (Nick Hinz) – cost share partner Western Washington University (Pete Stelling) – cost share partner DOE Project Team: DOE Contracting Officer – Laura Merrick DOE Project Officer – Eric Hass Project Monitor – Laura Garchar Signature_______________________________ Date____10/16/15_______________ *The Prime Recipient certifies that the information provided in this report is accurate and complete as of the date shown. Any errors or omissions discovered/identified at a later date will be duly reported to the funding agency. Page 1 of 152 DE-EE0006725 ATLAS Geosciences Inc FY2016, Final Report, Phase I Geothermal Potential of
    [Show full text]
  • Russia´S EMERCOM
    Russia has regularly experienced major natural disasters and they credibility and political emergencies Managing EMERCOM: Russias’s are becoming more frequent. This is one reason why it is of inter- est to better understand how Russia’s system for disaster man- agement and the EMERCOM are organised, have developed and manages severe emergency situations. In a relatively short time, Sergei Shoigu transformed a volunteer search and rescue team into a ministry. The EMERCOM is an impressive organisation with vast resources in personnel (including with military personnel), equipment and means of land, air and water transport. A general overview is given of natural disasters in Russia followed by a more detailed description of the widespread forest fires in 2010 and the floods in 2012–2014. This is done to analyse how EMERCOM and the Government managed these and how efficient the Russian governance system is in an emergency situation. Major disasters will challenge the political leadership and its cred- ibility if disasters are not prevented or the response is not han- dled in an efficient manner. Roger Roffey The report establishes that there are clear weaknesses in the Russia’s EMERCOM: Russian governance system for managing serious emergencies. Officials at subordinate levels are reluctant to make independent decisions for fear of being blamed by the federal authorities and Managing emergencies and will sometimes wait until they are ordered to act by higher central levels. In addition officials do not always report how serious the political credibility situation really is so as not to be blamed. This is of course very negative for handling an emergency when rapid decisions are needed to allocate resources due to how the crisis is developing in the affected area.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Volcanoes of the Kurile Islands MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 137 Geophysical Surveys Robbins, 2010 S
    4' Alaska Division of Geological & Active Volcanoes of the Kurile Islands MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 137 Geophysical Surveys Robbins, 2010 S. D. Robbins March, 2010 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys SHEET 3 OF 3 Active Volcanoes of the Kurile Islands Volcanoes with documented historical eruptions are shown with the year Kamchatka of the most recent eruptive activity. An “active volcano” is defined as 50°N meeting at least one of three criteria: (1) A historically documented Peninsula eruption, (2) current fumarolic activity, or (3) scientific dating of an eruption within the past 3,500 years. Where no year is given, the date of the last Sea of eruption is uncertain. Acknowledgment: Alaid 1981 x C.A. Neal, Alaska Volcano Observatory, special thanks for project concept, data and guidance. Okhotsk # Sources of data: Chikurachki 2008 Ebeko 2009 x Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Team (KVERT) catalog of # active volcanoes, www.kscnet.ru/ivs/kvert/ volcanoes/index_eng.html x Sakhalin Volcanic Eruption Response Team (SVERT), Institute of Fuss Peak 1854 Marine Geology and Geophysics, FEB RAS # Tatarinov x Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History Global Volcanism ## Program, www.volcano.si.edu/ # Shaded relief image: x GTOPO 1 km global elevation model, and ETOPO (2 min) USGS 50°N bathymetry model; courtesy ESRI Ekarma 1980 Karpinsky 1952 The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) is a joint # program of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Geophysical Institute of the University # Nemo Peak 1938 of Alaska Fairbanks
    [Show full text]