Jökull


Jökull - 01.01.2021, Page 31

Jökull - 01.01.2021, Page 31
The 1918 Katla eruption Isopach map The isopach map, based on all available data (Figures 1–4) and our reconstructed locations and thicknesses inside the caldera, is shown in Figures 5 and 6, with the latter being a blowup covering Mýrdalsjökull. Fig- ure 6 shows the isopachs and the estimated locations of fallout and calculated thicknesses of tephra at these sites. The map in Figure 5 shows that no single direc- tion was dominant in the distribution of tephra from this eruption. Three dispersal axes are most promi- nent, directed towards north, northeast and southeast. Three other axes are indicated by the map, towards south, west and northwest. The 1 cm isopach extends about 100 km to the north but less than 10 km to the southwest. Details of how dispersal of tephra varied with time during the eruption are given in Larsen et al. (this issue). Volume of airborne tephra in 1918 The bulk volume of the tephra carried by the plume and forming the tephra layer has been estimated by: (1) direct integration of the map for contours >0.5 cm, using Surfer (Golden Software) after generating the map using the kriging option. (2) Plotting the logarithm of thickness against the square root of the area within each isopach and integrating the curve as four exponential segments, following Fierstein and Nathenson (1992) (Figure 7a). (3) By integrating be- tween successive contours we obtain 10 exponential segments. In all cases, the fallout outside the outer- most, 0.5 cm isopach, was estimated by extrapolat- ing the exponential curve obtained for the interval be- tween 1 and 0.5 cm out to infinity. The results on volume by the three methods (Table 1) all lie in the range 0.9 to 1.0 km3. They are not fully independent, as the same method is used in all cases for the region outside the 0.5 cm contour. Integration of the map also shows that about half of the total volume of airborne tephra (0.45 – 0.50 km3) fell on Mýrdalsjökull. The uncertainty of the volume estimate of tephra that fell on Mýrdalsjökull can be crudely estimated. The tephra thickness near the vents on Figure 2a has an estimated uncertainty of 40%, while thick- nesses for the northern part (Sléttjökull) are better constrained due to the limited effect of post 1918 ice flow on layer thickness, as shown above. By using uncertainties of 40% for the caldera and 20% for the northern part of the glacier, the resulting combined error for the glacier part is 0.15 km3. For the areas outside the glacier, the large number of survey points results in lower uncertainty, which we cautiously as- sume to be no more than 20%, or 0.1 km3. By us- ing the mean of the three values in Table 1 as the best available estimate for the tephra layer we obtain a rounded off volume of 0.95±0.25 km3. Table 1. Estimates of the bulk volume of the Katla 1918 tephra layer. – Rúmmál gjóskulagsins frá 1918. Thickness Map Exponential method Exponential method integration1 4 segments2 10 segments2 (cm) km3 km3 km3 <0.5 (0.16) 0.16 0.16 >0.5 0.74 0.84 0.87 Total 0.90 1.00 0.93 1Integration made using Surfer (Golden Software) for thickness >0.5 cm and exp. integration results for <0.5 cm. 2The fallout thickness as function of the square root of area is shown on Figure 7a. Fallout in the ocean to the south and southeast of the volcano is estimated as about 10% of the total, a value obtained from integration of the ocean part of the map in Figure 5. We estimate the total mass of the layer using a density of 1200 kg/m3, a rea- sonable number for basaltic, fine grained, and to a large degree phreatomagmatic tephra (Oddsson et al., 2012). The result is a tephra layer deposit mass of 1.15±0.30×1012 kg (about 0.4±0.1 km3 DRE). It should be noted that the volume/mass obtained here is far from being the total amount of material pro- duced in the eruption, as water-transported pyroclasts are not included. This material may have been of com- parable quantity (Tómasson, 1996; Larsen, 2000) as that of the airborne tephra. Moreover, any material deposited at the eruption site, forming a subglacial ed- ifice, is not included. JÖKULL No. 71, 2021 29
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179

x

Jökull

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Jökull
https://timarit.is/publication/1155

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.