the university of reading helen dacre the eyjafjallajökull eruption: how well were the volcanic ash...

35
The University of Reading Helen Dacre The Eyjafjallajökull eruption: How well were the volcanic ash clouds predicted? Helen Dacre and Alan Grant Robin Hogan, Dave Thomson, Ben Devenish, Jim Haywood, Franco Marenco, Ben Johnson, Albert Ansmann, Ina Mattis and Lieven Clarisse

Upload: eugenia-mcdonald

Post on 13-Dec-2015

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

The Eyjafjallajökull eruption: How well were the volcanic ash clouds predicted?

Helen Dacre and Alan Grant

Robin Hogan, Dave Thomson, Ben Devenish, Jim Haywood, Franco Marenco, Ben Johnson, Albert Ansmann, Ina Mattis and Lieven Clarisse

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Motivation

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

EUROCONTROL report from 14 - 20 April: 75% of European airspace closed 100,000 flights cancelled 10 million passenger journeys affected 7000 flights cancelled up to 18 May

Motivation

Level Concentration (mg/m3)

High > 4

Medium 0.2 - 2

Low < 0.2

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Operational volcanic ash transport and dispersion (VATD) models

Quantitative model predictions

Source parameter uncertainty

Meteorological input uncertainty

Future Work

Talk Outline

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Operational VATD Modelling

INPUT MODEL OUTPUT

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

0.1 0.55

20

70

4.4

0

20

40

60

80

% o

f tot

al m

ass

Particle Diameter (µm)

0.1-0.3

0.3-1

1-3

3-10

10-30

30-100

Eyjafjallajökull Source Parameters

0.225H=0.365M

H

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Column Integrated Mass Concentration 14-18th April

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Fine-ash Fraction?

Mastin et al. (2009)

COMPARISON WITH GROUND BASED LIDAR

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

IASI Volcanic Ash Product

12UTC 16th April00UTC 16th April

Leipzig

10UTC 16th April22UTC 15th April

L. Clarisse

Leipzig Leipzig

Leipzig

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

1.5%

Scaling to Observed Concentration at Leipzig

A. AnsmannI. Mattis

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

MODIS Visible Image

12UTC 16th April

12:24UTC 16th April10:44UTC 16th April

Chilbolton

(Hogan et al. 2011)

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Scaling to Observed Concentration at Chilbolton

(Hogan et al. 2011)

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

5-minute time series of plume height from the Icelandic radar (data from Petersen and Arason)

Eruption Plume Height Data

Missing scanCloud obscuredMountain obscured

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Plume Height Reconstruction

4% 3%

COMPARISON WITH AIRCRAFT LIDAR

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

5th May

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

14th May

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

17th 1.6%

14th 1.3 - 2.5%5th 7.5%

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Peak Concentration and Layer Width

2%

5%

Ash layer width = integrated column mass/max concentraton

COMPARISON WITH AIRBORNE SPECTROMETERS

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Fine Ash Particle Size Distribution

14th 2.1%

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Fine Ash Particle Size Distribution

5th 10.6% 14th 2.1% 17th 3.1%

0

20

40

60

80

% o

f tot

al m

ass

Particle Diameter (µm)

0.3-1

1-3

3-10

10-30

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Fine Ash Fraction

3.5%

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

It is possible to identify the ash layers detected with the ground based and airborne lidars with layers in the NAME simulations

Observed ash layers are thinner than teh simulated layers and at lower altitude

Horizontal and vertical structure of the simulated ash clouds are sensitive to assumptions about the profile of the ash emissions – no best profile but for weak activity a uniform profile may be best but for greater activity a concentrated profile better

Quantitative comparison suggests that only about 3.5% of the erupted mass was in ash particles small enough to allow long-range transport

It is necessary to represent the large, short-term fluctuations in plume height accurately

Summary

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

NAME did a reasonable job of capturing the horizontal structure of the ash cloud subject to possible timing and positioning errors that occur due to meteorology

NAME underestimates maximum concentrations by a factor of about 2.5

OR NAME overestimates layer with by a factor of 2.5 Default particle size distribution in NAME contains too

many 10-30µm diameter particles

Summary

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Operational volcanic ash dispersion modelling Model input uncertainty

Eruption plume height, vertical distribution Peak concentrations Fine ash fraction Particle size distribution

Model/observation comparisons Satellites Lidars (ground and aircraft based) In-situ particle measurements

Will we do better next time? Future work

Talk Outline

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

NAME dispersion model Input

Eruption location Eruption start time and duration Eruption height, vertical distribution Eruption rate (fine ash fraction) Particle size distribution, density Sedimentation velocity Meteorology

Output Ash concentration Mean travel time

Operational Volcanic Ash Modelling

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Synoptic Analysis at 00UTC on 16th April

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

Modis AQUA visible image at 13:23 UTC

12UTC 16th April

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

IASI Measured Volcanic Ash

22UTC 14th April

10UTC 16th April

10UTC 15th April

22UTC 15th April

The University of Reading Helen Dacre

The University of Reading Helen Dacre