Like a box of chocolates

Sometimes studying volcanoes is similar to what Forrest Gump told us about life: You never know what you're gonna get.

Yesterday we had our Vancouver Volcano Studies Group meeting. Basically, this group consists of a bunch of people in Vancouver doing volcano related research, or people who are just somehow affiliated with one of us and interested in the topic. This time, we decided to have a once-a-term mini-conference. A bunch of us gave talks about our volcano-y research, and I was pretty blown away. I mean, I'm a volcanologist, so surely I know about most of the methods we use to study volcanoes, right? Incorrect. There are so many cool ways we can study volcanoes that people talked about yesterday, it was really fascinating. And the best part? Some methods can be done by anyone! Citizen scientists, we need you!

So let me give you some examples.

1. Drones! This is of course a buzz word at the moment, but turns out they can really help us to learn about our volcanic neighbours. Drones are good, because they don't care too much if a volcano erupts a bunch of gases that might not be great for human health - at least if you don't leave the drone sitting in those gases for days or weeks at a time. Also, with drones we can cover a lot of ground in a short amount of time, and get to see places that otherwise we might never get to. That means we can fly a drone over a lava lake, or some other potentially dangerous part of the volcano, and get video footage without having to risk our lives. Yay! You can also mount all sorts of cool equipment on a drone, depending on how big the equipment is and how strong/stable the drone is. I'm thinking, maybe small gas sensors, or a thermal camera? 
2. Lasers! Ok, this sounds tacky, but seriously. There is a technique called "Lidar", which means you shoot a laser pulse at something, it bounces off, comes back to your sensor, and you can measure the time it takes, and maybe some other things about the returning pulse. We can cover whole areas with those Lidar measurements, and that way reconstruct the surface that we were scanning, in 3D! Certain properties about the returning waves might even give us some information about the material we were scanning. That means, without having to go there, we can scan surfaces and observe how they are changing over time. For example, we can learn about lava lake explosions when rocks fall into the lake from the walls. How? We measure the volume of rock lost into a lava lake in a rock fall, by comparing the Lidar scans from before and after, and we can of course measure the height of the explosion from the lava lake, or some other property. That way we can learn about potential processes happening underneath the surface of the lava lake during the rock fall, or at the very least we can know for next time when a rock fall happens how big the explosion might get.
3. This is maybe the coolest one, cause it's so simple that anyone can do it: Photos! If you take lots of photos of the same object from different angles, there is software that can create a 3D image of your object. That way we can get detailed models of areas that are too difficult or too dangerous to get to, just like with drones. Even better if we can combine the two somehow, drones and photos. We could study the surfaces of the rock on a high peak, for example, and learn about how they formed, or we could get the change of time of the surface of a growing lava dome at really high detail - maybe this can tell us when a collapse of the dome may be happening soon? Of course there are lots of calculations and conditions that need to be met for this to work, but in theory anybody could do this! If you're an avid climber or mountaineer, you might be able to help us study some of the old volcanic peaks by taken photographs of them from certain angles during your trips, and submitting them to some sort of central repository afterwards - so you get to contribute to science while doing your favourite outdoor activities, isn't that cool?!

I realized during the meeting that this kind of thing happens quite often: I go to a meeting or conference, expecting the standard presentations, and then get something completely unexpected, new, and exciting! To me, it was most surprising to see how simple some of the concepts are, and yet how useful they might be to learn things about volcanoes! Sometimes, the best ideas are the really simple ones.

Volcanoes in Ecuador

Last November I participated in a workshop on volcanic unrest, where we spent several days discussing possible tell tale signs that a volcano might be waking up, and whether or not we can use these signs to know whether it is going to erupt or whether it's just stirring a bit before it's going back to sleep. Turns out that knowing for sure is actually quite difficult!

We also got a chance to do an eruption simulation, where we were fed fake monitoring data and were supposed to make decisions about advice to local authorities and emergency management along the way.

From a science perspective the workshop was interesting, but what I think was most valuable (and is often overlooked) is how it brought together scientists, civil defense and emergency management professionals, monitoring organizations, and local (political) authorities. Communication between these different entities is crucial particularly in crisis situations around natural disasters, but can't function properly if it hasn't been establish long before an actual emergency occurs. Every scientific project with a natural disasters component should include all of these groups!

Last but not least, of course we visited two of the local volcanoes, Cotopaxi and Tungurahua. Neither of them were in eruption at the time, but both of them presented majestic sights.

Below a video from the VUELCO project, that summarizes our experience.

Disaster preparedness - Plan, pack, proof

Natural disasters can strike pretty much anywhere and anytime. I'm not just talking about volcanic eruptions, but anything from flooding through wind to earthquakes, landslides, and more. I have never lived in a place that was 100% free from natural disasters, and probably never will. Neither do you. 

When I was in southern Germany, we got thunderstorms, hail, and crazy rain that can lead to flooding, especially in the plains at the foot of the European Alps. In the mountains themselves, landslides and rockfalls are not unheard of. In New Zealand, we had earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms, and even the odd tsunami alert from earthquakes happening far away. In BC, volcanoes are only a smaller problem, but (potentially large) earthquakes can happen. Whereas the West coast of Vancouver Island may get hit by Tsunamis, Vancouver is relatively sheltered. Winter storms can still hit pretty badly. I recently did a temporary move to Houston, Texas. If you've been following some US news I'm sure you heard/read about the Memorial Day flooding we've had down there. Tropical storm Bill, which followed a couple weeks later, was relatively harmless, thankfully, but Hurricane season has just started and we don't yet know what it will bring. The storm, however, got me thinking once again about being prepared for natural disasters.

Even though we may have little or no warning of what's coming our way (depending on whether we're talking weather, volcanic eruptions, or earthquakes, for example), there are definitely ways in which we can at least try to soften the impact natural disasters have on our lives. Of course, my German-ness makes me biased - after I all I love planning things, but in this particular case we could all benefit from some small preventative measures. The type of preparation might change depending on what kind of natural disasters your region is prone to, but some things are the same no matter whether you live in a volcanic area or somewhere with blizzards dumping snow on you. There are two important things to keep in mind:

1. Come up with a plan well in advance. Whereas with a hurricane we might get a few days warning ahead of time, earthquakes unfortunately don't do us favours like that. We want to be ready when disaster strikes, and it will only take maybe an afternoon to come up with the basics.
2. Most of your planning will not go into the logistics for the actual event, but mostly the aftermath - when power and water might be gone, infrastructure might be damaged, shops closed, and when we might have to be self-sustained for a number of days.

So that being said, here are some simple things that you can do to reduce the damage a natural disaster might do to your home, belongings, and loved ones.

Phase 1: Plan

Educate yourself about natural disasters that might happen in your area. Geologic surveys, met offices, and other (potentially government run) organizations and their websites are great resources. Work your way down from large to small: What natural disasters occur in my part of the world? How would my town be affected? My neighbourhood? My house? My commute? My workplace? My kids' school? For example, you might live in an area where flash flooding can occur after heavy rain, but your house is on top of a hill, in which case you would not necessarily have to be super worried about large amounts of water accumulating in or around your house. Or you may live in an earthquake prone region, and your house might be on top of sand or gravel type sediments, in which case the shaking from an earthquake might be worse than if the building was on a thick, stable granite. Knowing what could happen can win you half the battle. Below an example of an earthquake hazard map for Victoria, BC, from the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Similar resources might also be available in public libraries.

Relative earthquake hazard map for Victoria, BC. Monahan et al, 2000, from Ministry of Energy and Mines (http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/NaturalHazards/VictoriaEarthquakeMaps/composite/Pages/default.aspx)

Furthermore, come up with a plan for your family. How are family members going to get in touch in case of a disaster? Is there somebody outside the area who could serve as a check-in point? What if the event occurs when you are at work/school? What if it's at night? Do you have a pet that needs extra consideration? Make sure everyone is aware of the hazards and knows what to do. Again, there are some amazing online resources that make coming up with a plan really easy.

Phase 2: Pack

Once you know the potential natural disasters and their impacts, pack an emergency kit. Imagine being without water/power/outside help for several days. You will need enough water for everyone in the house, dry/canned food, medications, first aid, flashlights, spare batteries, cell phones and chargers (ideally with portable power sources), some tools and/or an army knife, your most important documents such as passports, some blankets, warm/waterproof clothes, and so on. Having documents in a waterproof case/envelope might be useful. Some extra items like sleeping bags, or your children's favourites toys could be a good idea too. Make sure everything is in one, easily accessible place, and everyone knows where that is. If you don't want to assemble a kit yourself, you can even buy them online! Be sure to change water/food/medication every few months so that nothing is out of date. And again, having everything ready well before a natural disaster occurs is crucial - when I went to the supermarket the night before Bill was supposed to make landfall they were almost out of bottled water, and canned food was running quite low too.

Phase 3: Proof

Last but not least, try to proof your house for the potential event. For example, in earthquake regions you could move heavy items to the bottom of shelves instead of the top, to avoid heavy objects such as books tumbling down and injuring people. Or, in regions along hurricane paths it might be useful to always secure or limit the number of loose items in the backyard/on your balcony, outdoor shutters, and more. It all depends on the type of natural disaster happening in your area.

That doesn't sound so difficult, does it? By doing all this you won't be able to reduce the hazard (i.e. the potential for natural disasters) to your particular area, but at least you have done everything in your power to lower the risk (i.e. your vulnerability to the existing hazards). In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't take long, it doesn't cost much, but it might make your life a lot easier in case something really does happen! Stay safe!

Calbuco Volcano - a beginner's guide to its hazards

I'm sure you all have read tons about Calbuco Volcano now, so I'm not going to bore you with the details. Hopefully you've seen some of the stunning photos that have emerged, e.g., the ones on the Flickr stream by the Chilean Geological Service.

I quickly want to talk about hazards though. This volcano has quite the selection of hazards for you to choose from. The explosive eruptions have sent ash more than 15 km high into the air (click on the orange links to learn more about each hazard). This ash is covering a lot of infrastructure, property, and destroying crops. Most of it is being blown to the North-East at this point. With eruptions this explosive there will also be big blocks of rock being thrown out of the volcano, sometimes landing several kilometers away!

If an ash cloud collapses it can produce a pyroclastic flow. The deposits from old eruptions at Calbuco show that pyroclastic flows in the past have reached as far as Puerto Montt, a city with around 200,000 inhabitants around 30 km away from the mountain. For now I would guess that these pyroclastic flows are more likely to go towards the North-East, following the direction of the wind, but there is no way to know for sure, especially if the weather conditions change.

In addition, if ash settles on the mountain and is mixed with water (for example from snow on the top, of if there is a bit more rain over the next few days or weeks), big lahars (mudflows, mixtures of ash, dirt, water, snow, and debris such as trees etc.) can happen and travel down the valleys of some of the many rivers flowing down the slopes of the mountains. These flows can be incredibly powerful and destructive. Lahars can also reach tens of kilometers, so the 20 km exclusion zone they've put up makes a lot of sense.

In addition, some lava fountaining has been seen at Calbuco after the initial, more explosive phase that sent the ash into the skies. This means that some small lava flows can occur on the mountain. And of course, the gases that accompany volcanic eruptions can be quite dangerous too, if you get too close. Better stay at a safe distance. That way it's also much easier to take photos of the entire ash cloud!

It currently looks like the activity is getting a bit weaker: Whereas the Chilean Geological Survey observed more than 1,500 earthquakes between April 22-23, this number went down to just over 1,000 between April 23-24, just over 500 one day later, and to around 300 today. Unfortunately it's very difficult to know whether this number is going to increase again, which could mean another pulse of eruptive activity. For now all we can do is to closely monitor and to keep away from the mountain as much as possible.

View image | gettyimages.com

View image | gettyimages.com

Volcanic whistles and more

We've been talking about science and being a scientist and girl power for a while, so I reckon it's time to get back to volcanoes. In August 2012 I went to Hawai`i for the AGU Chapman conference on Hawaiian volcanism. The lovely people at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) were nice enough to let me stay for a bit to get familiar with the volcano and to get some of their data to play with. It was also a good opportunity to catch up and collaborate with my friend and colleague Jess Johnson again. My supervisor Mark and I had decided that Kilauea would be a good volcano to study earthquake recordings.

What were we trying to achieve by studying Kilauea Volcano? The main question we had was 

"Do the continuous earthquake recordings look different for different types of eruptions?"

Intuitively one might say, of course there are differences (or at least that's what I would have said). But we wanted some real evidence. Kilauea tends to erupt most of the time, and the style of activity varies, so this was an ideal place for us to go and test our hypothesis. 

I got data from the continuous recordings of earthquake activity around Kilauea volcano for an eruption in the eastern section of the volcano (called the East Rift Zone, close to a crater called Pu'u `O`o) in 2007, and a similar eruption in 2011. These eruptions were related to magma breaking and pushing open a big crack a few kilometres underground. This is called a dike intrusion.

I also got data from a series of more explosive eruptions in the western part of the volcano, close to a crater called Halema`uma`u, in 2008. During the year 2008 these explosive eruptions slowly formed a connection between the magma supply at Kilauea and the surface. Now there is a lava lake that's something like 200 m across, and visitors can no longer access the crater like they used to. The explosions probably only moved magma around that was a few 100 metres below the surface, not kilometres like in 2007 and 2011.

So we had data for two types of eruptions:

fissure eruptions in the east (i.e., lava fountains)

vs. explosive eruptions in the west

We used a technique called Fourier Transforms to find out what frequencies the earthquake waves were composed of at the different points in time (if you want an analogue explanation for what Fourier Transforms do check out this old post). That way we can make what's called a "spectrogram". You can learn a lot of things about the earthquake waves by doing that. For example, you can get an idea if the movement of the ground is from an earthquake that happened close by, or from an earthquake that was hundreds of kilometres away. The graphic below shows the seismic ground movement (the black wiggly thing) and the spectrogram (the rainbow coloured rectangle) for a few days in 2011. I've added some labels to explain in a bit more detail what we can see on it.

Seismic ground movement and "spectrogram" from Kilauea Volcano during an intrusion and fissure eruption. The coloured spectrogram shows how much of each frequency we have in the seismic wave at each point in time. Red means a lot of that frequency, blue means not a so much of that frequency. The red diagonal streaks across the graphic are the volcanic whistles, described below, where the frequency goes up (or down) over time. You can just hear the first one when you listen to the audio from the link in the text below.

So by doing that we learned three main things about eruptions at Kilauea:

1) Fissure eruptions and dike intrusions at Kilauea really do generate ground movement that is different from explosive eruptions.

2) These fissure eruptions and dike intrusions show two phases of ground movement:

Phase I (purple in the graphic above): The first phase is made up of lots of short earthquakes, close to the dike intrusion and the eruption. These earthquakes are probably related to breaking the rocks when the magma pushes open the crack. 

Phase II (blue in the graphic above): The second phase starts a few hours after the first phase. It doesn't have as many short earthquakes, but instead shows continuous (small) movement of the ground for a few days. This continuous movement is what we call "volcanic tremor". Phase II happens quite far away from the eruption and the dike. 

3) The second phase has something called "frequency gliding" (the diagonal streaks in the graphic above). It means that the frequencies of the waves slowly change over time, a bit like a kettle on the stove that starts whistling at a higher and higher tone when the water is boiling.

To give you an idea what I'm talking about I've taken some of the ground movement and sped it up by a lot. You can play the movement that happened over roughly 1 day in just over 1 minute. That way we can actually HEAR the ground move. Click here to listen to the earthquake activity during the 2011 eruption at Kilauea. At first you just hear some noise like the wind. That's before anything is happening. All of a sudden (around 7 seconds in) you start hearing a lot of clicking sounds, maybe like gun shots or like rain drops on a metal roof. Those are the little earthquakes during Phase I. Then it gets a bit quieter again, and then you start hearing something continuous, like a boiling kettle (around 45 seconds). That's the volcanic tremor from Phase II. If you listen really carefully you can even imagine that you're hearing the frequency gliding, i.e., the whistling getting higher and higher.

You may remember a study in 2013 from Redoubt Volcano up in Alaska. Redoubt was also whistling, for around 1-3 minutes before some of the explosions that happened there in 2009. They called it "screams". It turned out that the screams where actually little earthquakes getting closer and closer together in time, until you can't distinguish them anymore and they're just one continuous scream. 

The screaming or whistling at Kilauea is quite different: It's really slow and lasts for many hours. Nobody has seen gliding that lasts this long anywhere before. Also, the little earthquakes that you can hear in the beginning actually SLOW DOWN before the whistling starts, so the explanation from Redoubt doesn't work here. Many other models that explain this type of behaviour can't produce whistling that would last for several hours, so we spent some time exploring what could generate a signal like that. In the end we decided that the Kilauea tremor and whistling may be related to bubbles in the magma: We think that it's possible that gas bubbles in the magma reservoir beneath the western crater Halema`uma`u can form "bubble clouds", or areas where lots of bubbles collect in one place. These bubble clouds can start swinging, or oscillating, if there is magma flow or something else that can start the oscillation. This swinging is transferred into the ground. When the magma flow changes (for example when a crack breaks open somewhere else in the system, like the dikes in 2007 and 2011) the frequency of the bubble cloud tone can change, and produce the whistling that we observe. 

To know whether that is actually what was happening at Kilauea we would need some more info, for example a detailed study of where exactly the whistling was coming from on the volcano. However, it was still really interesting to see how by comparing the earthquake recordings from several different eruptions we were able to identify similarities and differences, and how that - in combination with other observations during those eruptions - made it quite tricky to come up with possible explanations for what we observed. Many studies focus on just one eruption, but we showed that we can learn a lot by looking at the bigger picture.

If you're still reading this you really must have a lot of spare time, so feel free to check out the journal article that we wrote about all this.

Want more like this? Check out Science Borealis!

Good news! The Volcano Diaries are now part of the Science Borealis network - lots of awesome blogs about all sorts of science and related topics in  Canada or by Canadian based writers. Click on the image on the right to explore the Science Borealis world.

Being a scientist - Like a girl

The stereotypical geoscientist is, of course, a geologist. And if you're imagining this geologist you might be seeing a man with a lot of facial hair who spends all day hiking around the mountains in trekking shorts and hiking boots, equipped with a compass, a rock hammer, and a hand lens. Geologists like him are maybe what Sheldon Cooper refers to as "the dirt people". I hate to break it to you: Geoscientists come in all shapes and sizes.

First and foremost, there are tons of awesome lady geos out there. Think Martha Savage, who is one of THE people to talk to about seismic anisotropy (or in other words, the fact that earthquake waves can sometimes travel faster in one direction than another, for example), and a brilliant supervisor on top of that. Think Linda Elkins-Tanton, a very inspiring planetary scientist who spent some years in business before going back to grad school and a little while later ended up as the Director of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington (she is now at Arizona State, also check out this blog post about her time at DTM, and yes, planetary scientists are also geos in a wider sense). Or, if you're more into popular science, this would be a good place for a shout out to my former fellow UBC student Mika McKinnon, who writes awesome geo-related content for space.io9.com. All these ladies, and so many more, are doing awesome things in the name of science - and defeating the stereotype. The campaign #LikeAGirl, which got a little attention boost this weekend after it was aired during the Superbowl, is a great example of how important the fight against these kinds of stereotypes is. And it works even better if we have examples for how to do it, if we find women we can look up to and respect for their achievements. Similar to the Like A Girl campaign, a few months ago some women in science took it upon them to promote the fact that, yes, you can be a girl of any kind (manicured or not) and do great science. Check out some of the tweets:

Fluorescent calcite (orange), willemite (green), and nails (purple/white, $OPI UV topcoat)! #science #manicuremonday pic.twitter.com/rz6Gt57v6T
— Ashley Pagnotta (@ashpags) July 28, 2014

Science means reading a lot of papers and doing a lot of highlighting. #manicuremonday #science pic.twitter.com/GRM75N0g32
— Aly Baumgartner (@kyrietree) July 7, 2014

The rainy season has begun! And many critters have returned, like this beautiful beetle! #science #ManicureMonday pic.twitter.com/Gk6T8Iu1qE
— Erin McKiernan (@emckiernan13) May 26, 2014

Some people complained that this campaign hijacked a hashtag that was maybe meant for young girls. I have to disagree. In a hijacking something is taken away. Showing how you can have hands #LikeAGirl and be an amazing scientist at the same time is hardly taking something away. Quite the opposite, I think it's a great add on.

Being a girl in science is a blessing and a curse. Depending on the field you may be surrounded by the older men, who may or may not think that you are where you belong. In one of my undergrad classes there were 6 of us - 4 guys and 2 girls. We had to take turns in walking through our homework assignments at the blackboard in front of the professor and the rest of the class. When the guys had their turns we all listened to what they had to say and worked on the problem of the assignment. When the other girl or I had our turns we had to write out our solution while the prof was sitting down and making comments along the lines of "Pfff, girls, they don't belong in science, not a clue what they're doing". In the end, our final grade was down to written work, and he had no choice but to give me the top grade in the class alongside one of the guys. When we came to pick up our exams and get our grades he made a big point to congratulate my (male) friend (who got the other top grade). After my friend pointed out to the prof that I had gotten the same grade the prof started stuttering and mumbling something like "yeah, but you were better". I can only laugh about this guy. Of course this is only a minor problem compared to some other stories, and definitely nothing that would have kept me from doing what I set out to do. But you never know. From being ignored through harassed to assaulted - sadly we've heard it all. 

On the other hand, being a girl comes with certain (legit) advantages. In many scientific disciplines we are far from a gender balance, especially when it comes to leadership positions. According to the 2011 report from the American Geoscience Institute, only 30% of the US geosciences workforce are women, even though girls get 40% of the geoscience degrees. That means that if you decide to stay in the field as a woman, you might have slightly better chances compared to a guy with the same qualifications, just because of the "minority" status women have. This advantage may sound unfair to some guys, and it really is, but sadly, until we have a gender balance or something close to it (particularly at the leadership level) I don't think we can afford to not implement this kind of decision making. 

All the same applies not to just to gender, but also to ethnicity, social background, age, and who knows what. Ultimately, I'm going to be optimistic and say that maybe one day we can be balanced scientific society, where hiring decisions are made on scientific merit alone. I hope that the little girls of today, like those in the Like A Girl campaign (also check out this great article) will grow up and run, throw, drive, laugh, cry, sing, do maths, paint, dance, play football - like girls who came into a world with a little less stereotyping. I personally tend to do things to the best of my abilities and knowing when to accept defeat - I run like me (not very far), throw like me (not even 5 meters), do science like me (lots of volcanoes and computers involved), and I stand up for myself like me: According to my dad, my teacher in primary school once told him a story from a field trip where the boys treated one of the girls in some unfair way, so that little 8-year old me ended up scolding them all so vigorously that the whole episode made a lasting impression in the teacher's mind for over a decade (and maybe it's still in there...). I think I stuck to that habit, and I'm not planning on letting go any time soon. #LikeAGirl