Posted on by Jón Frímann

Bárðarbunga volcano update 1-December-2014

This is going to be a short update on activity in Bárðarbunga volcano.

Observation of the eruption in Holuhraun has been difficult to impossible in the past days due to bad weather in Iceland. The lava field is now larger than 75 km². I don’t know the volume at the moment. The amount of SO2 is I think about the same as before, as for cycles of pulses I don’t know if that is currently ongoing or has stopped. The output of lava is around the same, around 50 – 130 m³/sec far as I know.

141201_2000
The earthquake activity in Bárðarbunga volcano for the past 48 hours. Copyright of this image belongs to Icelandic Met Office.

Largest earthquake today (01-December-2014) had the magnitude of 5,2 according to Icelandic Met Office. Fewer earthquakes where detected on Sunday due to the bad weather in Iceland. It looks like there has not been any change in earthquake activity for the past 48 hours, it just looks like it on the Icelandic Met Office maps due to the bad weather.

Donations: Please remember to donate or buy stuff from Amazon to support my work here. Thanks.

Comments: Please remember that everyone has a right there own view. I however ask people with some of there less proven ideas to keep them out of this website. If you see flaming or bad behaviour in the comments. Please let me know with a email and I will deal with it. I also remind people to be nice to each other here.

Moving to Iceland: Tomorrow I am going to turn off my earthquake computer and other computers that I now have running. This means that I’m going to switch the backup settings. The geophone computers are going to upload the images to the internet while my main earthquake computer is off-line. I don’t know for how long that is going to be, at least until August when I plan on start back in school. Since I am going to be moving there won’t be any update on Wednesday 3-December-2014 or on 5-December-2014. I am going to try and post short update on 6-December or 7-December-2014 (using the laptop that is falling apart). I will try to approve any comment soon as possible if your comment ends up in the comment moderation for some reason.

300 Replies to “Bárðarbunga volcano update 1-December-2014”

  1. Monday
    01.12.2014 19:55:26 64.667 -17.446 4.1 km 4.5 99.0 4.9 km NE of Bárðarbunga

  2. Please be safe in your moving . . . perhaps keeping in mind . . . you have only one back . . . 2 arms and hands . . . and 2 legs & feet . . . and will likely need them fully functioning and undamaged in the future. LOL.

  5. Great update Jón as usual, I hope you have a safe and pleasant journey back to Iceland.

    2. Dear Joan,

      I think the position of the earthquake and the depth probably will change after the EQ has been reviewed by scientists, because the quality is quite low (only 50.5%) and the depth given is de default depth.

      Kind regards,

      Henk Weijerstrass
      ZWAAG (Holland)

  9. Thanks for your work, Jon! Have an easy and successful move – and feel home and comfortable again in Island!
    I am also in the middle of moving 🙂

  10. The latest 3 earthquakes of M5 have all showed stronger spikes than usual in Hekluvoktun. Perhaps these latest quakes have occurred a bit southwest than most other quakes. If that would point to southwest rifting it would be worrying, but it doesn’t need to be that. Or wave propagation is facilitated towards the southwest somehow. I haven’t felt this one but it was also during the night.

    1. Tuesday
      02.12.2014 02:18:28 64.666 -17.487 2.5 km 5.4 99.0 3.4 km NE of Bárðarbunga

  12. “The lava field is now larger than 75 km². I don’t know the volume at the moment.”

    A good stab would be to look at Laki, its lava field was 565km² which was 14km³ erupted. 75/565= 13.27% and 13.27% of 14km³=1.86km³.

    Only an estimate of course.

    1. Good try, Napdull! Might be quite accurate. But you also have to include varying thickness (impossible !) of lava fields to calculate more precise. Laki lava travelled quite far away from the went through valleys and down to the south coast almost. If the minrealogy of the basaltic rocks differs slightly, you will get different thickness. Also depending on the flow rate/speed of extrusion. Tricky one!

      1. I agree it’s tricky, but it was just a stab in the dark. I don’t think they’ll get anything totally accurate though until it’s all over, unless they can do something by satellite.

      2. Somehow including an average grade of the terrain in the area of the flow as well as a lava viscosity factor in comparison to Laki would refine the estimate. Well beyond my talents though.

  13. Let’s say the volume of the Holuhraun lava field is 1.5 cubic km.
    And the volume of the Bardarbunga caldera subsidence is also about 1.5 cubic km.
    The density of the magma is about 2.7, the density of the Holuhraun lava is about o.9, or about 1/3 that of the magma.
    That means that 1 cubic km of magma is spread out underground throughout the BB dike system, and only o.5 cubic km has erupted at Holuhraun to become light pumice.

    Well then the Bardarbunga-Holuhraun system is self contained, like a rain barrel emptying through a long hose into the garden. And there is no need to suggest that more magma might be rising to fill the magma chamber under BB.

    Magma pressure is from the caldera subsidence and from the slowly sinking north and south rims. The eruption could go on for a very long time until subsidence bottoms out.

    1. “And there is no need to suggest that more magma might be rising to fill the magma chamber under BB.”

      Actually there is, according to the local scientists, the petrology study of the lava suggests that the magma is coming from a depth of at least 9 km. Which has made them conclude that the chamber system under Bárðarbunga is much more complex than previously thought.

    2. Why should the Holuhraun lava have a density of 0.9? As it is lying around there it probably has 2.7 g/cm3 or similar, as you specify for the magma in the chamber. There was no pumice erupted at the current eruption. How do you get this idea? Your calculation and interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Sorry! Let’s stay with what we have and see. I would go so far that any magama chamber interpretations here make no sense, as we don’t really know what’s going on down below.

      1. Agreed, whole area is a constantly evolving and distending so we should be surprised by magma not meshing with mental frameworks or computer models. Thank goodness highly-evolved magma has not been involved, the deep or fresher stuff is friendlier, but only if it can de-gas to 1 atmosphere … which it currently isn’t.

    3. The lava at Holuhraun is light pumice?I think you have to realize that the drainage/subsidence idea is used because it explains the situation and seems on the surface to fit what is happening,but I would suggest that there is a lot going on that does not fit that model and should not be occurring?This is a “subglacial caldera event”,that is the equivalent of seeing a living “woolly mammoth”,the easiest explanation is that it is an elephant that happens to have hair and escaped from a zoo in Hawaii,but the reality is a mammoth.

      1. Lol – re. the mammoth metapher.

        BTW: What in your opinion is going on that “does not fit the model”?

      2. Resurgent subglacial caldera,only previously observed by prehistoric man,the very ones who hunted mammoths?But more likely a subtropical Hawaiian subsidence caldera with ice on top.

      4. BTW: Though the scientists Magnús Tumi Guðmundsson and lately also Páll Einarsson emphasized that they held an eruption in Bárðarbunga central volcano would be the least likely of the named alternatives within the joint reports of IMO and HÍ at the moment, another scientist now says that it would be important still to think about this possibility. Ingi Þor­leif­ur Bjarnarson esp. is of this opinion, because he detects a shortage of interpretation of the medium sized earthquakes. He contacted also Almannavarnir because of this as this is the possibility with the highest quotient of damage: http://www.mbl.is/frettir/innlent/2014/12/02/ekki_haegt_ad_utiloka_gos/

      5. Earthquake activity alone can cause an increase in hydrothermal activity

        “Hydrothermal activity increased substantially in a large area around the two faults. It has been estimated that the thermal power equivalent of the increased flow of hot water to the surface is around 100 MW. The great geyser, Geysir, that gives its name to all the geysers in the world, 30 km to the north of the faults, erupted again, after being more or less dormant for more than half a century. Water level changes in boreholes, observed immediately after the earthquakes, agree very well with the observed mechanisms of the earthquakes, i.e. raising water level in the areas of compression and lowering it in the dilatant areas. The hydrolic pressure change was in the order of 2-13 bars in wells sited only few hundred meters from the fault lines, in the range 0.5 to 2 bars in the next 1-2 km radially out and 0.1 to 0.5 bars as far as 100 km from the seismic faults”

        http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/skyrslur/June17and21_2000/index.html

      6. @Ian I can’t disagree with you ,as you obviously have a far greater knowledge in these matters.But in my own opinion(not saying that is worth anything ,just an opinion),the earthquakes are thermally induced,the same with the subsidence.That’s why ,again in my opinion,very large eruptions are often proceeded by large earthquakes,the sudden ascension of a large body of magma causes a thermal shock,maybe the large ice cap prevents this from happening?

      7. @ingeB,in my uneducated opinion,the probability of a large explosive eruption is low ,but cannot be excluded.If we base it on other calderas(yes subduction zones,but they still have magma as the driver),geothermal heating and seismic swarm events are quite common,but large eruptions extremely uncommon,with periods of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousand years between events.

      8. @JB

        It’s not a matter of agree disagree, I was pointing out there are other possible causes to the increase in geothermal activity in the caldera other than rising magma. These possibilities along with others cannot just be ignored to suit a specific model.

        The fact that the quakes are trending deeper not upwards, the downward trend in quake energy going lock step with the subsidence and the volume of lava expelled at the fissure. The simple explanation of a decrease in pressure in the central core, tectonic stress pushing inwards from rifting all suggest a drainage event, not a rise in pressure or magma. The entire caldera including the rims are now sinking. There is no evidence of sustained tremor from the caldera showing magma movement of any large volume at this time.

        All this could of course change.

        BTW, the volume of the subsidence compared to what has been ejected can easily be explained from decompression plus existing melt that was most likely sitting in the fissure already. That fissure opened up way too fast to be solid or just a crack.

        I am 100% Complete non expert… so no need to suck up GS

      9. I was following the previous discussion and there are a few points:
        – Steve, Holuhraun magma has no density 0.9. Where did you got that figure? Absolutely not. Erupted lava is much more dense than that. Probably close to 2.7. Density of lava might be even larger than chamber magma because it has been degassed.

        – your calculations should be more like this: 1.5 km3 subsidience + some new fresh magma into the system = 0.5km3 dike + 1.5 km3 erupted at Holuhraun + some gas + unconfirmed very small amount erupted on the SE edge of the caldera and Dyngjokull

        – JB, a “mammoth” large lava eruption, or even a mid size eruption could never have taken place within the BB caldera. We would already seen evidence of it. Any small eruption would quickly collapse the top part of the ice cap and result at least in a minor flood (if water wouldn’t remain hidden). Example July 2011 Katla unconfirmed eruption. Any larger eruption would reach the surface of the ice cap. In 1996, there was a minor explosive event at Bardarbunga caldera, so magma has no trouble reaching the top of the ice cap if it has enough pressure. Trouble is, most pressure is drained towards the rifting region @ Holuhraun. I think the IMO knows better than all of us, they are the ones that frequently hike and study the Bardarbunga ice cap.

        – JB, another point, large quakes preceed large eruptions: true, but during Krafla rifitng event (and that was a minor quake), the caldera of Krafla experienced subsidience as rifting opened northwards and quakes were up to M6, so let’s remember that we do not necessarely need a large eruption following large quakes within a caldera. But of course it is worth to pay close attention.

        – Ice cap prevents eruption: in a sense yes, it creates a downward pressure, so it plays a significant effect. But some volcanoes like Katla have no trouble erupting through the very thick giant ice cap every few decades, and rebuilding the ice cap between eruptions. So does Grimsvotn or Oraefajokull or Eyjafjallajokull. In a way, ice-capped volcanoes tend to erupt less often and more powerfully when they do, but that’s also because water is involved.

        – I do agree fully with Ian on this:
        I have an issue with the melting theory, how do you hide the melting of 1.4 km^3 of ice over such a short period of time, there is no steam, phreatic explosions and where did this much heat come from in such a short period of time at the surface and without any expansion in fact the land is sinking.

        And as he said it’s not a matter of agree or disagree. What happen happens, and there is a consensus amongst scientists that what is happening at Bardarbunga is subsidience caused by large amount of magma drained towards the regional rifting event, at Holuhraun.

        – it’s rather interesting for instance to look at the data at Hamarinn GPS. It showed uplift for several years until 2013, probably both magma inflation in the area and glacial rebound, now it shows sinking, probably deflation due to magma moving northwards. The entire region is sort of sinking. Iceland is full of such examples. Thingvellir rift valley is another example.

      10. @Irpsit,good comments.The mammoth metaphor,was not to indicate a potential eruption size,but infer an event that has not been seen in thousands of years and maybe thought not likely to occur now,having said that this is a large system.

      11. IngeB, here’s an English version of Bjarnarson report:
        http://www.mbl.is/english/nature_and_travel/2014/12/02/a_second_eruption_cannot_be_ruled_out/
        He is right, people shouldn’t get too complacent. The other two scenarios are still quite likely, especially a jökulhlaup to the north. Just because the eruption looks the same day after day does not mean that it will never end, then possibly abruptly.

        Irpsit, if you’ve collected samples from any of the lava fields, how heavy do they feel to you?

        Scientists and IMO have plenty of lava samples from Holuhraun. Why not try to ask them what the density is?

        My estimate, even if I’m off by a factor of 2, does not change much! The magma in the dike system, and what was down there before the current eruption, is an unknown in either case, and the eruption is still self contained — it is internally driven.

    4. SteveG, the density of basalts is 2.9-3.15 g/cm3. The density you assume for the molten rock in the magma chamber of 2.7 g/cm3 is typical for granites. Before throwing around some wild theories based on wrong data and poor field geology observation, you should get the details right first. There are some people on this blog which know a lot about rocks, so I hope you don’t want to upset them with your theories. It’s better to stay with the facts.

      1. The density of hot, 1150C basaltic magma is different than slowly cooled basaltic rock from an ancient dike. Density of 2.8 is about the max for that magma. For basaltic magma coming from a hot chamber at about 9km depth, density of 2.7 is reasonable.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma#Density

      3. SteveG, lets not get to deep with the density of the magma chamber. You should better explain your mentioned Baugur pumice deposit and 0.9 g/cm3 density of Holuhraun lava 😉

        The general theory dicussed here in the blog and elsewhere with relationship of BB subsidence rate to Baugur extrusion rate (both slightly decreasing with time and approximately fitting with km3 volume calculations) is probably the most plausible explanation for the whole event.

      5. SteveG, a couple of pieces of basaltic scoria is not representative of what extruded from Baugur. 99 % is solid basaltic lava with ca. 3.0 g/cm3. Ok? What Stevenson found was something rather rare.

      6. Magma coming from depth is always loaded with dissolved gases. As the magma rises, pressure on it is released. When pressure is released the gases gradually emerge as gas bubbles in the body of the magma. By the time it reaches the surface, magma looks like foam or sponge, all puffed up and full of gas bubbles.

        Scoria and pumice are two different looks to the same type of puffed up sponge-like rock. Basaltic scoria has fewer but much bigger bubbles.

        Solid basaltic rocks hardened in the deep, often under large mountains. The dissolved gases combined to form crystalline solid rock. The basalt is 3-4 times as dense (heavy to the touch) as pumice or scoria.

      7. SteveG, you don’t have to explain some trivial geology, you have just to defend your pumice theory and 0.9 density of the holuhraun. Seems like you can’t, so it makes no sense to write any more about that.

      8. Stefan, I’m defending it well enough. You need to listen better.
        To you what Stevenson found was “very rare”? Stevenson is a professional tweeting to other professionals. Re-read his blog and learn.

      9. SteveG, you do not defend it at all. You made a big mistake by calling scoria pumice. Another one with 0.9 density for Holuhraun lava. You have no clue what you are writing about. You just take things you read in twitter or wikipedia and do some weird interpretations. In comparison to the amount of lava deposited, the scoria is deposited in quite small amounts. If you didn’t notice yet, you should better listen to me, as I am a “professional”. If someone has to learn then I guess it’s you. I did all my learning many years ago. If you have any serious questions, I’m happy to explain you everything. If not please don’t reply. Thank you.

      10. I’m glad you’re a professional. You still need to understand when Stevenson says “I think that magma erupts as foam.”. No?

        My calling the mass of Holuhraun lava ‘pumice’ is not based on my field visit to the new lava field. Likewise, I did not measure the density of the lava in my laboratory. 😉

        These are back-of-a-napkin suppositions, baseline estimates, for the purpose of building a working model of the BB-Holuhraun system.

        For that purpose, in no way does it matter what the exact numbers turn out to be, as long as my estimates are in the ballpark and my logic is not flawed. That’s how science works.

      11. Keep on the good work. The other users will be delighted. I made the mistake to try to correct you. But you are uncorrectable. If you want to spread your strange assumptions it’s your free choice. Actually I don’t care what some Stevenson says about foam, as it is not scientific. Thank you for explaining your pumice view, and that it is just a theory of yours which has nothing to do with reality. By the way, science works like that: First you get your observations and data right, based on facts, then you can follow up with interpretation. I get the feeling you are just writing these things to upset me and other people on this blog.

      12. I’m sorry if this seems personal to you. It really isn’t.

        I argued (speculated with argument) that
        1) the magma is coming from a magma chamber at least 9km deep under Bardarbunga
        2) the subsidence of the caldera and the volcano’s rims pump magma from the deep chamber through the dike system toward Holuhraun
        3) that this rain barrel model is adequate to fully explain the eruption at Holuhraun (for now)
        4) that therefore, there is no fresh upwelling of deep magma
        — which is the whole point of the argument — fresh magma from a plume would have drastic consequences on prediction for the volcano’s prospects.

        The evidence is
        1) basaltic magma with plenty of SO2 but very little water
        2) the subsidence volume = volume of dike magma + erupted magma corrected for foaming.

        I don’t find any of this controversial at all, yet the conclusion is very useful.

      13. ” … 2) the subsidence of the caldera and the volcano’s rims pump magma from the deep chamber through the dike system toward Holuhraun … ”

        —

        That is a gross assumption. We shouldn’t simply revel in assumptions or hold them aloft as a ‘consensus’ (as if that ever meant a damned thing to reality). But we should not cease to challenge all such assumptions, in every way possible, and resist the comfortable temptation to lazily use them as though they are real. I’d prefer to reject all these sorts of presumptions and say I don’t know, than to just kid myself that these are ‘informing’ me. I likewise want observations to do the talking, and not prescribed consensual views.

        It’s just as possible that any degassing tendency occurring under ‘B’, is not degassing or changing volume at all at this point, and won’t unless confining pressure drops in B itself. The shape of ‘B’ and its subsidence can also be adequately explained via extension of B and the crust under it, and dike formation in its flanks with each ~5 mag quake, sans any mechanical magma transfer, at all, to 50 to 60 km elsewhere.

        Frankly, one of these options seems much more physically likely to me, in the light of observed rapid in-situ crustal distension, than the other more remote mechanical view. But hey, that’s just my natural tendency to appropriately resist the consensus assumption, from the get go, and to point out that reality doesn’t give a stuff about any human ‘consensus’, or ‘science’ for that matter.

    5. @lanF,I have been following closely your work on the “other” blog and I thought you may have been in agreement with “DT”on their theories,which obviously were not of a drainage persuasion?

      1. I can see merit in most of the theories out there, but do not know enough to judge which one is correct or not. In the end, I think there may be a little bit of everything going on and a bunch we do not know, even the experts do not agree in detail.

        I have an issue with the melting theory, how do you hide the melting of 1.4 km^3 of ice over such a short period of time, there is no steam, phreatic explosions and where did this much heat come from in such a short period of time at the surface and without any expansion in fact the land is sinking.

        However, I cannot see all of these quakes going on surrounding a core, of what is most likely a fair percentage made of molten rock, and not have some of it intrude into the walls. So it is quite possible that this could account for the missing volumes if you believe there was an injection of magma into the system.

        See, I can argue both sides so I remain on the fence.

      3. I repeat

        There is no misleading here

        The land is sinking, there is no denying that, all the instruments say so, many GPS stations including one in the caldera, the LIDAR, the pictures all show sinking. How or why or what else is going on is purely conjecture, not fact.

        You can go on pushing your closed minded doomsday scenarios Geyser or whichever one of your may personalities you are today, I do not care, but do not put words in my mouth

      4. Hey there was no intention to say you were misleading anyone,it was just to say that “sinking” gives an impression that a whole mountain will slip into the void,when only a small part is sinking?No attempt to put words in your mouth at all, I have never conveyed doomsday scenario,I have repeatedly said calderas do not go into a full scale eruption very often.As I said I respect your opinion and find your charts on the other blog interesting,so apologies for any perceived rudeness on my part.

      6. Whew,for a moment there I thought you were Geolurking in disguise lol,but seriously the community of volcano blog regulars is quite small and there is not much room for animosity as when one leaves their opinion is missed and the blogs suffer for it.

      7. I enjoy a good serious discussion but it should never be taken seriously.

        As per the translated interview, the theory of rising magma has not even been discounted by the experts. Shaking a volcano the way this one has been shaken and squeezed, has a pretty good chance of leading up to something and I for one am surprised it has not happened.

        I think now if it does happen it will be fast and with few signs. But, all signs right now lead me to think it is winding down.

      8. JB/GS
        At 19.55 yesterday you wrote:
        “He may just be right about the density of the shallow magma,ie granite?”

        I formally studied geology for one year for a British O Level and even I know that granite is not a form of shallow magma. It seems very odd to me that someone like you who *seems* to know so much about geology and volcanology should make this suggestion. Why did make it?

        Also, the geothermal subsidence view has been much canvassed by you on here. Some weeks ago it was shown to be mistaken on here by (iirc) direct statements to the contrary from IMO. What evidence do you have for questioning the IMO view. Not that it should be treated as above question, of course: but why are you resuscitating this opinion?

      9. @Andrew ,in regard to the granite question,http://www.galleries.com/rocks/rhyolite.htm
        In regard to the geothermal subsidence,that was referring to the subsidence of the caldera floor ,due to the thermal influence of a shallow body of possibly evolved magma,it was not inferring that all the subsidence is ice melt although the glacier is probably thinning due to geothermal heat.

      10. @Andrew ,I am not questioning the IMO,I am just floating ideas,If someone like you with modest but worthy credentials in this field can find fault with my reasoning,the fully qualified professionals would be at best amused at the errors or more likely could not be bothered.They would be more troubled by disagreement from their peers.

  14. I have now switched the earthquake monitoring to the backup setting. Now the geophone stations are uploading the images. This is going to be the setting until I can start to use my main earthquake computer again. I am not sure when that is going to be, maybe in August-2015.

    1. Everyone who noticed this from the webcams or Enno’s gallery was right. I thought this was just reflection from the distance.

    2. Is there a lava tunnel between Baugur and the northeastern active part of Holuhraun? There seems to be a discruption in between and on the other hand the northern part is very active as seen by the colours with a lively breakout to the north.

      2. For sure there might be some kind of lava tubes or tunnel systems. But I think the main effect is that at a certain distance from the vent the lava flow is spreading and building a crust on top of the flow because of the low winter temperatures and stiff wind in that area. At the end of the lava flow sheets you have multiple breakouts which then show up as dark red shapes at the flow front.

      3. Looks like a lava tube.
        Like those in Bláfjoll or Husafell

        I can imagine crazy people trying to do warm lava caving at Holuhraun, sometime later this decade.

        shh, let’s keep as a secret, as it will still be rather dangerous for years ahead.

  16. I think, and this is just me educated thought, that the eruption at Holuhraun will end in soon (by soon I mean 1 month, 1.5 month)

    The high levels of So2 pollution have been absent since about 4 weeks, with no SO2 detectable anywhere across Iceland since a few weeks. This, together with an apparent reduced eruption rate as per the webcams, makes me think that we are watching the last stages of Holuhraun.

    Question is how long will lava keeps this low level of eruption.

    2. If you look at the recent videos, it’s not such a low level of eruption. There is still a quite giant fissure vent eruption going on with a large constant lava flow with not too many changes. Now it would be interesting to get an update from the BB subsidence rate, if that is constant as usual. Has there been something done about the GPS measurements?

      1. It is possible they are not too bothered by losing that gps as it sits on an increasingly unstable glacier and the day by day readings would be more unreliable as with time?It is more a loss for the casual observer as now we have nothing to watch lol

      2. It’s now around 50 m3/s as are as I heard.
        The average for along time was 250 m3/s, so yeah there was quite a reduction. Also seen visible in webcams. But yes, it is still a significant eruption.

        In first days, the rates were very high, more than 1000 m3/s.

        But gas levels are now very low, compared to a month ago.

        Shield volcanoes can erupt for a very long time. In Iceland there has been evidence of eruptions lasting decades. It could be that this one could stay at this low but steady level for years.

    3. If you open a bottle of soda there is initially a frothing as CO2 exits the solution. If you leave the cap off the bottle and come back a little later, there will still be a significant amount of CO2 in the soda, though less and less with time as it exsolves. It takes some time for the unpressurized soda to go “flat”, and I suspect that will be the case at Holuhraun as well.

      1. That analogy assumes a static amount of soda. In this case there is new fresh soda being added. So it never really goes “flat”.

    4. There has been no indication of any slowdown or reduction in gas. People might have been lucky recently with wind direction blowing it away from populated areas but that is not an indication of any slowdown of the eruption. As far as I know from the official reports, it has continued as before and might actually be erupting MORE material now than it was a few weeks ago.

  17. Personally I like the theory that Bardarbunga is feeding Holuhraun through a dyke and that the subsidence of the caldera is simply because the magma chamber is emptying. I think when it has subsided below the dyke intrusion then the eruption at Holuhraun will stop and nothing else will happen for a long time.

  18. Deep MAR magma should have a low gas content. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/emissions_0207.pdf

    I dont think this will be over for a long time. Subsidence is largely driven by the sheer mass of the plug but also temperature differencies play a role. BB magma will be colder than deeper magma and so will exchange with chaotic fluid dynamics via convection (explaining the previously observed GPS occasional rises but with a general down trend).

    Some areas around BB have increased in height by a few cm over recent years suggesting a general upward push over a long time scale. The rifting event has not stopped yet and enough magma has intruded to keep things going for a long time.

    1. I am not sure about *Icelandic* MAR magma should have low gas.
      At least historically we have seen otherwise. Every regional rifting event releases plenty of SO2. Examples, Laki, Edlgjá, Holuhraun

      Maybe the rest of MAR has low gas, but it seems that the Icelandic hotspot changes that.

      However as magma is degassed it could still erupt over a time. That to me suggests that this is Bardarbunga slightly evolved deep magma, not fresh mantle magma, otherwise we would see continuously high SO2.

      Also Mg content points to that origin: a slightly evolved basalt, at Holuhraun not fresh. But obviously rather deep sourced.

      1. Is the high SO2 content indicative of the magma having spent some time in the crust?Would magma more recently sourced from the mantle be high in CO2?

    2. Unfortunately, the article’s “gas content” is misleading. By page 2 they clarify a bit:
      “Felsic [that’s continental, recycled] magma stems from differentiation processes (i.e., chemical alteration) in the magma chamber, or from melting of earth crust material. This highly differentiated magma is rich in silicate and alkali. It contains a higher content of dissolved gases, especially water. “
      By lower gases they meant water, which is absorbed by shallow magmas from the moist crust. Sulfur dioxide is usually indicative of deeper magmas.

      1. The Holuhraun magma in September had around 85% H2O?A lot of the information has been confusing,magma from
        10km deep then from the mantle?Direct from the mantle is ultramafic 1400 °C not 1150 °C?But I guess all magma came from the mantle at some point.

  19. JB – It is not valid to argue, based on the eruption frequency of calderas located in subduction zones or situated above continental hotspots, where the physical and chemical properties of the magma are very different, that an eruption of Bardarbunga is very unlikely or that it would necessarily be very large. Studies of the geochemistry of volcanic ash layers in soil profiles around Vatnajokull show that Bardarbunga has erupted on average 5 times per century over the last 7600 years:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00445-011-0461-4

    A relatively minor subglacial eruption (in terms of dense rock equivalent) can produce a hazardous ash cloud and glacier outburst flood, as shown by Eyjafjallajokull.

    1. Bardarbunga erupts on average once per 20 years, yes. But we are not sure whether all eruptions come from the caldera, or elsewhere along the fissure swarm, still within the ice cap.

      There were several eruptions in 1700s from Bardarbunga, slightly explosive ones, but apparently they were mostly from Dyngjujokull not the caldera.

      In 870 and 1477, there was a large ash eruption, but all ash came from Veidivotn ice-gree region, with plentiful water. They were regional rifting events, large ones.

      Apparently the caldera had a minor eruption in November 1996, but only for 2 hours, a weak VEI2, following Gjálp eruption.

      This makes me think, that some time after Holuhraun we might see the same pattern, a flood and as pressure is relieved, a small explosive caldera eruption at Holuhraun. But the account for a flood now, is much less likely.

    2. @alayne,I defer to your greater knowledge in these matters,but I shall make the point(just purely for the purpose of discussion), that I was referring to a large scale explosive VEI 6 caldera forming event(if such an event is possible),naturally less explosive eruptions and large effusive events have occurred more frequently.In subduction zones silica rich magma is in abundance,but large infusions of basalt needed to trigger this magma not as common,in this rifting environment the basalt is in abundance ,but the evolved magma is more scarce,but it does exist.

      1. okay but would it be possible that the lava already degassed in large areas Bárðarbunga. thus a large high-pressure gas storage arises. The danger with explosive eruption is not only part .but 1 x release of gas?

      2. The gas is contained under crustal pressure within the magma,the higher silica content magma contains the gas in solution at lower pressures,so when it is close to the surface it explodes out of the magma with extreme violence?.One M3 of rhyolite containing 5% H2O will expand to around 600 M3 at the surface.The more knowledgeable will correct this information I am sure.

  20. I suggest that people use Google to find science articles about volcanoes. Doing so is better than arguing about and guessing about behaviour of Bárðarbunga volcano, magma and such things. There is a lot known about volcanoes today, not everything, but we still have a mountain of data to work with.

    1. Good news 🙂 Hope it works. That graph was really impressive to have alongside the eruption.

    2. You are welcome. 😉
      Who doesn’t ask would get no answer. 😀
      Will post a thank-you note later on.

    1. True, but in this particular case, the magma that is erupting is very young or “primitive”. This is not magma that has sat in a magma chamber for centuries. This magma is from the mantle very recently.

    2. That article would be more consistent for subduction zone volcanoes where magma is injected in “pulses” such as along the Pacific coast of North and South America and Japan. We might see, for example, some increased activity in Japan in 2030-2040 or in Indonesia in 2015-2025 as some of the recently subducted material finally melts and starts making its way up. There is some evidence that volcanic activity picks up in such zones a decade or two after major megathrust events and it can last for a century. For example, there was a large M9 megathrust event along the coast of Oregon and Washington in 1700. The Pacific Northwest was much more active in the second half of the 18th century into the first half of the 19th century than it has been since.

      1. There is this tendency to assume that I am implying that this is an exact replica of a subduction caldera,that is not the case as this is a unique situation but it also is not a Hawaiian caldera but elements of these systems would still apply as this is a magma instigated event and certain basic principles would still apply ,but adjusted for the Iceland situation and the unique system of this volcano.I am not a qualified professional,I am an ideas person,so I take the information as I see it and try to for an idea,if it’s wrong it’s wrong.

      2. I wasn’t implying that anyone suggested that this was exactly like a subduction caldera. I was implying that the linked article at Erik Klemetti’s blog was more applicable to subduction zone volcanoes and does not really apply in this case. The magma being erupted now in Iceland is not magma that has sat in a magma chamber for centuries and then reactivated by a pulse of fresh magma. This is magma from a very deep source in the mantle and quite fresh from all appearances. It has apparently never had a chance to cool, degas, generate a “crystal mush”, etc.

      3. @crosspatch,I am well aware that the current erupted magma is basalt,the reference to the long standing magma would be deposits at shallow depth in the caldera,this magma would have evolved from past episodes of basalt rising from depth over a long time span.This magma would be receiving heat from the current large input of deep sourced basalt which is also erupting at Holuhraun.The heating reduces the density of the shallow magma compared to the rock of the caldera floor,so the floor subsides?
        Can you grasp this concept?

      4. I can grasp that quite clearly. But my original assertion that the article on Erik’s blog has nothing to do with the sort of system we have here at Bárðarbunga stands. This is not an eruption of magma that has sat in storage for a long period of time. This is fresh mantle material being erupted.

        There is no long-standing shallow magma chamber magma being erupted at Bárðarbunga.

  23. Wednesday
    03.12.2014 21:15:44 64.669 -17.463 7.9 km 4.0 99.0 4.4 km NE of Bárðarbunga

  24. DT at the other volcano site, (volcano cafe) has posted an interesting article in reference to this event (Dec 3 about 2330 hrs). Could someone with more computer knowledge than myself copy it to this site? It’s very interesting to read.

    3. Yeh, that translation is Kolla’s of a radio interview with Ari Guðmundsson .
      My model of the Holuhraun eruption is in direct contrast and opposition to his model of magma coming up and down from everywhere. Although the main argument against his ideas is that he violates a powerful and time honored scientific principle, and very useful myth, Occam’s razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

      2. Nope, not in the least. The razor is of the same material as Luke Skywalker’s jedi sword.

      3. Jokes aside magma is not going down,it is going in at least 2 places ,to the fissure eruption and into the upper levels of the caldera,but there was already cool magma at shallow depth in the caldera and this magma is no longer cool,it is not a chamber but possibly more of an irregular deposit like a giant piece of scoria,not a balloon so it heats in an irregular fashion and maybe explains the NE bias to the quakes?Just some of my thoughts.

  25. I just read this interview by Ari Trausti Guðmundsson. Yes, Kolla, I know you already post it and translated it before. Thanks for that.

    http://www.ruv.is/mannlif/hvad-er-ad-gerast-undir-bardarbungu

    He seems to support my theory of a shield volcano building up at Holuhraun. At least it’s nice to see an Icelandic scientist confirm by theory. But interestingly he adds the twist that some of you guys here have added, which is that M5 earthquakes can be caused also by rising magma rather than only subsidience. So I am starting to think I was only seeing half of the big picture on that regard. Jon has also been speaking about increasing pressure in BB volcano, by new magma.

    In a way, that makes it more worrying to think of it, in such terms.

    Ari also describes that BB caldera is rather more of a shield volcano. Well, it’s a large source of incoming magma right under, from the plume, and it also rifts and sinks at same time.

    1. Yes as you can see things are more complex than they seem,so no the quakes are not generated by a falling lid!,I have been saying this for nearly 3months.

      1. The comments on VC about ,how can there be rising magma but no shallow chamber,are interesting.My interpretation is that the shallow magma is a deposit of cooled evolved viscous magma that is going through a heating phase,this magma has accumulated over hundreds of years?This is my opinion and not what the interview intended to convey.

    2. Irpsit – “But interestingly he adds the twist that some of you guys here have added, which is that M5 earthquakes can be caused also by rising magma rather than only subsidience.”
      —
      Crustal and mantle extension produces crustal subsidence followed by lagged uplift. Despite the extrusion we’ve really only seen one side of that coin to date. Good news is the extension stopped suddenly, so the reflexive uplift may be inhibited some.

    3. It’s not your theory. Please don’t write like this, it sounds childish. Every volcanologist would get to this conclusion, that if Baugur keeps on like that, one day we will end up with a new shield volcano. It’s very easy to write here quite neutral about different ideas without adding ‘it’s MINE’. Thanks for understanding, Irpsit.

  26. I have just looked at the EQ map and have noticed the there is a straight line of eq’s are these near the rim of BB or are they near the GPS i the middle ?. I was thinking that it could be magma rising . it is just strange it is in a straight line.

  28. So it looks like everything is continuing as before with strombolian activity continuing in the Holuhraun area at Baugur. If this was Mt Etna we would consider this a flank eruption of the main volcano, which in this case is BB. Meanwhile someone, Kolla I believe translated a talk by a volcanologist that mentioned the petrology of the basalt.

    It seems that the lava may be similar to that at Surtsey, a primitive alkali olivine basalt. That’s interesting because it is somewhat different from mid ocean ridge basalt which is usually tholeiitic basalt.

    I’m not sure what this means, since I haven’t had time to look it up, but primitive basalts indicate deep source magma, and alkali olivine basalts are typical of ocean islands like Hawaii. In any event we have basalt and lots of it, and it may be fresh from the mantle. This is an extremely interesting eruption based on the already large volume of lava and the continuing unrest underneath BB.

    1. Thanks, E J, for the reasonable, fact based comment. I’d love to know whether the Holuhraun lava is olivine, possibly from a hot plume like Hawaii, or just typical mid-Atlantic basalt. The difference for Holuhraun is not too important, but it would say something about Iceland as a relatively fixed spot on the globe.

    2. Steve I don’t believe you will find a pure olivine lava. You can get mantle xenoliths that are high in olivine and peridotite, but a typical Icelandic lava will be a basalt, and yes I know there are some rhyolites there, but in general we are looking at basalt.

  29. Thursday
    04.12.2014 15:45:00 64.667 -17.378 6.8 km 4.3 99.0 7.7 km ENE of Bárðarbunga

    Thursday
    04.12.2014 15:35:02 64.666 -17.444 4.4 km 3.9 99.0 4.9 km NE of Bárðarbunga

  31. I have now moved, my belongings are now on the way to Iceland and I hope everything makes it there properly and without issues.

    Earthquake activity appears to be increasing in Bárðarbunga volcano. Magnitude 5,0+ earthquake might happen soon.

  32. Wishing you well with everything and very glad to listen to voice of reason. It will be very interesting to see if the current consensus of the experts will happen. It seems to me their assertion that activities will just wind down from this point forwards has insufficient basis to create great confidence.

    1. Good link, thanks. This is the first I have seen so far quantifying any reduction in daily eruptive volume. Does confirm that the magma being erupted is deep in origin, too. They do have a wide range of uncertainly calling the magma source to be from 9 to 20 km deep. I’m pretty sure it is going to be deeper than 12km as we do not see any seismic connection with the dyke to at least that depth.

    2. Among the important brought forth were

      o the volume of the magma in the dike is about 0.5 cubic km, and that it was fully formed by the beginning of the volcanic eruption.
      I could be wrong, not knowing anything about how the estimate was done, but I would guess that this is probably somewhat on the low side because the dike system extends not only to north to Holuhraun, but also to the south, the west, and the northwest.

      o The magma that comes up is a rather primitive basalt, with a chemical composition typical of the Bárðarbunga volcanic system. The petrology analysis of the magma suggests that it stabilized at 9-20 km depth, meaning that it could not have resided at a shallower depth in the crust.
      I believe Jon also pointed this out in an earlier blog post. The basalt is original from depth, and not recycled crust melt. It is for this reason that the water content is low and sulfur compounds high.

      o the volume of the lava is now about 1.0 cubic km but the uncertainty is 0.3 cubic km.
      The thickness of the lava field is uneven and difficult to estimate.

  36. hi everyone

    please forgive I might be wrong on this . is been a week since I look at the webcams . it does look like or might be a new vent to left hand side or it is the red glow apart of the lava field .

    2. Just got a brief glimpse through the gloom and it appears to just be the forward edge of pooling lava, but difficult to be certain with the limited visibility.

  37. thank you for all your comments . I been following this website for about four years . I glad jon moving back to Iceland . I know he didn’t really wanted to leave . jon how the moving getting on and are you planning to visit the fissure eruption soon .

    1. I think that magma analysis is for the original brief fissure eruption that proceeded the current event?

    3. The only other information was the work translated by Kolla that indicated this was a primitive alkali olivine basalt similar to that erupted at Surtsey. In any event this is the type of thing we would expect at a spreading centre/hot spot. Along Mid Ocean Ridges the typical basalts, referred to as MORB, are usually tholeiitic basalts. Alkali olivine basalts are found on ocean island volcanoes like Hawaii, which also has produced more olivine rich picrites.

      Meanwhile there seems to be be plenty of earthquake activity at BB, both near surface, and deep beneath the volcano, so methinks the next recharge of magma is percolating upwards. Typically this seems to result in a new pulse of activity at Holuhraun, since that is were the magmatic plumbing seems to lead – at least for now.

      1. My impression is not that there is an increase in EQ activity. IMO just started to put more of the EQs happening into the table. Which was not the case the last days when you compare the table with drumplot recordings.

      3. I don’t know, if this last link works. Title of the abstract is anyway: Chemistry and fluxes of magmatic gases powering the explosive trachyandesitic phase of Eyjafjallajokull 2010 eruption: constraints on degassing magma volumes and processes
        Allard, P., etal.

      4. Once again, thank you for those links, IngeB. I found the second abstract at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.V53F..07A

        Both are technical, but revealing for us. They emphasize the chemical complexity of many layers (‘ponds’) of magma under Iceland, rather than simply just basaltic or rhyolitic (rich in silica). For example, 2010 Eyjafjallajökull erupted some of each type.

      5. E J Mohr, thanks again!
        If you look at the latest links from IngeB, the basalts are at least those two types you mentioned, alkali basalt and the more common tholeiitic basalt which is more toward the northeast rift zone.

        Deep basalts gradually become separated out over great time spans, as you know. According to the articles, some of the ponds (or pancakes) of magma sitting here and there are of varying compositions from shallower or deeper layers of the ‘original’ stuff further below. What I’m hoping for is evidence that the large chamber already sitting under Bardarbunga has deep origins as shown by the lava chemistry from Holuhraun.

        This is needed to guess at why, like the Hawaiian hot spot, Iceland is stable and has not split in two with the MAR. There is a great excess of upwelling magma that keeps gluing the split parts together.

        But also, the magnetic maps show Iceland as an irregularity, a fixed obstruction in the way of the long term mid-ocean rifting. Why is that, if not because of a large or repeating deep plume?

      7. Yes intriguing things said in that interview,I read a lot between the lines there ,but I tend to do that.The interview had a bit of a dual personality,possibly elements lost in translation?

      1. I was thinking of that shovel picking up lava. The way he holds the shovel near the end and middle, how heavy would you say the lava can be?

        Looks only a bit heavier than snow but much lighter than cement. Cement is lighter than solid basalt.

  40. A new “webcam hero” has just cleaned both BB cameras. Nice clear view now!
    THANK YOU VERY MUCH !!!

  41. Friday
    05.12.2014 14:17:10 64.678 -17.466 6.9 km 4.2 99.0 5.1 km NE of Bárðarbunga

    1. Storm with rain / snow showers, called éljagangur in Iceland. This stormy episodes are alternating with quiet weather and often just over a timespan of some minutes, half an hour or so. http://www.vegagerdin.is/ferdaupplysingar/faerd-og-vedur/sudurland/linurit/st060.html On the wind plot of Icelandic Road Administration, you can see how the wind goes up suddenly. Here also nearer to the eruption site at Jökulheimar: http://www.vegagerdin.is/ferdaupplysingar/faerd-og-vedur/sudurland/linurit/st194.html

    1. Maybe the recent pulsing was an infusion of more magma from depth and this is starting show as an increase in frequency of the stronger quakes.The current maximum size in this event from memory was a 5.7,so larger than that and it might be time to take note?

      3. There was a 5.7 early on, and then another 5.7 a couple of weeks later that was downgraded to 5.5 – I believe the early one was indeed a 5.7

  45. Was Magnitude 5.1 according to IMO.
    Looks so big on the plots maybe because of beeing very shallow with only 1,9km.

    1. Friday
      05.12.2014 21:04:54 64.621 -17.371 1.9 km 5.1 99.0 7.8 km ESE of Bárðarbunga

      1. Past 48 hours 24 EQ’s of mag 3+. All were in the NE area of BB except this 5.1 in the SE. Let’s see if things quiet down a bit.

      2. There were only 4 mag 3+ quakes for less than a day, after that EQ activity picked up again. What does this mean?

  46. IngeB and subsequent contributors: Many thanks for the references and refreshing, evidence-based discussion. This concept of multiple, stacked magma chambers with short magma residence times, fed from the mantle by the hotspot, is very interesting. I have also been wondering whether the pulses of earthquakes visible recently in both time and depth (3dBulge) represent “burps” of magma coming up from lower levels below Bardarbunga and exiting via the dyke, also leading to the rather erratic GPS vectors. This may be why the petrologists are taking their time to do in-depth analyses of the ?evolving magma composition….

  47. Two things regarding donations. I’ve changed my mind regarding my Danish bank accounts. I am not going to be closing them down as I planned. I am going to keep them going forever. This also means that I won’t be closing down my PayPal account for Denmark.

    The reasons for this change are mostly technical. I also have no problem transferring money from my Danish bank account to my Icelandic one. What I can’t do is to transfer money from my Icelandic bank account to my Danish one. I will post more details on this in my next update on Bárðarbunga volcano. I’m not sure when that is going to be, I don’t expect to have time to write one today, but the day is not over yet so I am not sure at the moment.

    Please remember to support my work. Thanks. 🙂

  48. Saturday
    06.12.2014 11:49:51 64.617 -17.401 5.2 km 4.2 99.0 6.6 km ESE of Bárðarbunga

    2. I saw the location of it, I think its more likely ocean waves or manmade noise. Less likely to be linked to Tjornes quake activity.

      1. Can’t imagine “manmade noise” at this location as this is at the tip of Flateyjarskagi (peninsula), a region of only some long since abandoned farmsteads called Náttfararvíkur. You can see some of the small little houses when participating in a whale watching tour from Húsavík.

  50. Pics of the flying over Bardarbunga: 1 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0552.JPG
    2 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0546.JPG
    3 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0545.JPG
    4 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0547.JPG
    5 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0624.JPG
    6 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/GG_P1110032.JPG
    7 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/ArSi_10.10.14-14.jpg
    8 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/ArSi_10.10.14-13.jpg
    9 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0514.JPG
    10 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0592.JPG
    11 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0589.JPG
    12 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0585.JPG
    13 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/MJR_DSC_0558.JPG
    14 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/GG_litud_10126.JPG
    15 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/ElBj_IMG_0398.JPG
    16 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/ElBj_IMG_0337.JPG
    17 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/ArSi_10.10.14-9.jpg
    18 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/ArSi_10.10.14-8.jpg
    19 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/ArSi_10.10.14-6.jpg
    20 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/ArSi_10.10.14-3.jpg
    21 http://www.vedur.is/media/jar/myndasafn/frodleikur/full/ArSi_10.10.14-1.jpg

    1. Those are some of the most beautiful pictures I’ve ever seen! Thank you so much for posting them.

    2. Thx Luisport! Can clearly see fissures in ice from subsidence and also couldrons? Be nice to see how the radial fissures relate in orientation to the caldera. …
      Some of the best info I’ve seen for a while 🙂

    4. Thank you, Luisport, for posting these interesting pics.

      For me, no. 7 and 8 are the most interesting, because there you can see degassing fissures within the ice. They have not only been degassing, but seem to be doing that even at the very moment of the flyover.

      1. And as you can see an ice cauldron in the background, I think, this shows a location over Dyngjujökull.

Comments are closed.