Bardarbunga eruption now largest since Laki

The University of Iceland has made it official.

As of Friday, October 17, the Bardarbunga fissure eruption was larger by volume of magma than the Hekla eruption of 1947, said a Tweet from the University of Iceland.  It is now the largest Icelandic eruption since the Laki (Skaftáreldar) eruption of 1783-1784

The  Holuhraun lava field now covers more than 59 sq km (22.78 sq miles), and around 0.83 km³ (.51 cu miles) by volume.

This info came from a report by Jon Frimann.

Thanks to William Dugan for this link

“There have also been reports also the magma what’s now coming up is more gas rich,” says William.

16 thoughts on “Bardarbunga eruption now largest since Laki

  1. Whoa … it’s the biggest eruption in Iceland since 1947, and probably long before that, but it’s nowhere near the size of Laki which was 14 km3.

    This is a large eruption to be sure, and it’s not over yet, but it is not yet even close to Laki.

  2. Interesting to see 1947 mentioned because in Eire that winter brought one of the worst snowfalls ever my dad told me it was still in the fields in june

  3. So now that there is a base figure – start the graph (love them!); use major winter events; crop failure/famine/political unrest/mass population death (war included)/sun spots with time on the Y axis. Then see if there is a correlation within 1 to 2 years of eruptions. I theorize that comparing then to now – will be indicative of what is to come in the next 20 years.

  4. “There have also been reports also the magma what’s now coming up is more gas rich,”
    Would like to see a SO2/particulate readings with the prevailing wind pattern – that too will tell what the N.America weather will be like in 2015/2016. Warning: Mother Nature is getting ready to throw a curve ball to Al Gore, the EPA and all their ilk.

  5. The amount of sulfurdioxide gas (SO2) produced in this eruption is staggering , it varies between 20.000 and 60.000 tons per day and it is pushed skyward by the heat of the eruption . It must be influencing the northern hemisphere climate and is the cooling of the sea-surface temperatures alreay a consequence ? Is there abybody able to quantify more clearly about what is going on already for more than 2 months now ?

  6. Has anyone ever tried to factor volcanos into models of climate change? Using historical data, they should be statistically predictable, that is historically, a given number of volcanic eruptions should be likely to occur over a given time, in a given rage of intensities, although predicting specific volcanos erupting in any one time period would probably not be possible. My guess is that volcanos were not factored into climate change models, or if they were their effects were understated, because they are too much of a wild card, and too likely to upset the global warming apple cart, even though they are a very significant factor in real world climate.

  7. Harold, unfortunately the current (and ALL of the past) models cannot predict future changes accurately. NONE of the “Climate Models” have been proven scientifically valid. So more data input will not help.

    All models are wrong, but some are useful. (George E. P. Box)

    With regard to Climate Models, they can be interesting but I would not invest MY money on their “projections.” However I would accept government grants to prove whatever the government, EPA, WWF, or Tides Foundation want. Especially if it involves significant travel to posh resorts in tropical venues to present or listen to peer (pal) reviewed papers.

    • This is my point exactly, though perhaps I didn’t make it clear. Climate is too complex and includes too many “wild cards,” such as volcanic activity, to model accurately with current technology, or perhaps ever.

  8. the computer climate models dont even factor in clouds, because no one can set down what clouds do. In fact, clouds do both – cool and warm.

    So, no natural processes in the models like space weather, volcanos, undersea volcanos, little understanding of watervapor, no cloud modeling, and a WAAAYYY overestimation of CO2.


    • What you’re discussing is a heat engine chaos structure, which is dependent on a variable star whose energy output varies particularly at the UV end of the spectrum, has significant warm periods and very deep, but short cooling periods, you can’t model this to the degree that is required, if at all.
      This is where the climate charlatans have nailed their colors to the CO2 mast, when they don’t even allow that the Sun is the only significant supplier of energy to the earth. The oceans are simply a vast hot water bottle which without the Suns major energy source would cool and freeze solid in a few short years.
      AGW CO2 is a convenient propaganda smoke screen to hide the many governments desire to move away from expensive Hydrocarbons supplied by counties whose political structures are on the boundary of medieval barbarism, or of 20 century political expansionist dictatorships.

  9. ‘The Universe is statistical’ if you dont like it too bad, quote R. it or not..means we cant predict such things as climate with what ever means at ALL.

  10. Something almost ignored when our planet was quieter, the additional hazards of volcanoes and earthquakes with modern technology liable to damage.
    ‘Japan’s Meteorological Agency’s volcano division said that the volcano Ioyama, a mountain on the southwestern island of Kyushu, had been shaken by small tremors – some lasting as long as seven minutes.’

Comments are closed.