IMS observations of infrasound and acoustic-gravity waves produced by the January 2022 volcanic eruption of Hunga, Tonga: A global analysis

Vergoz, Julien; Hupe, Patrick; Listowski, Constantino; Pichon, Alexis Le; Garcés, Milton; Marchetti, Emanuele; Labazuy, P.; Ceranna, Lars; Pilger, Christoph; Gaebler, Peter; Näsholm, Sven Peter; Brissaud, Quentin; Poli, Piero; Shapiro, N. M.; Negri, R. De; Mialle, Pierrick

doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2022.117639

Cited by 80 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The fit parameters to the data indicate the speed of the wave to be 1114 ± 2 km/h (309 ± 1 m/s), and the fitted intercept at R 0 = −4927±33 km implies that the main explosion occurred at approximately 04:25 UTC, several minutes after the first seismic event [2]. The speed determined here confirms that the pressure disturbance corresponds to a Lamb wave [4][5][6]8,29].…”

Section: Speed Of the Lamb Wavesupporting

confidence: 57%

Energetic output of the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption from pressure measurements

Díaz

Rigby

2022

Shock Waves

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The violent eruption of the volcano at Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai island on January 15, 2022, generated an intense pressure wave registered by instruments all over the world. Using public reports posted on social media, we have used the arrival time of the first passage of the wave to measure its velocity, found to be a constant $$1114\pm 2$$ 1114 ± 2 km/h ($$309\pm 1$$ 309 ± 1 m/s). An empirical pressure–distance relation that utilizes measurements from a large range of sources is used to estimate an energetic output. We find that this Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption released approximately the equivalent of 61 Mt, which is considerably larger than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and slightly higher than the yield of Tsar Bomba, the largest human-made explosion in history.

show abstract

Section: Speed Of the Lamb Wavesupporting

confidence: 57%

Energetic output of the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption from pressure measurements

Díaz

Rigby

2022

Shock Waves

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its explosive intensity is close to that of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, with a Volcanic Explosivity Index of ∼6 (Poli and Shapiro, 2022). The induced atmospheric Lamb wave circled the globe at least 4 times with an amplitude unseen since the 1883 Krakatau eruption (Matoza et al, 2022;Vergoz et al, 2022). Within a few hours, several successive events injected material up to the mesosphere (Podglajen et al, 2022), with the bulk of the plume being detrained between 26 and 34 km (Carr et al, 2022).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution and dynamics of the Hunga Tonga plume in the stratosphere

Legras

Duchamp

Sellitto

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We use a combination of space-borne instruments (CALIOP, OMPS-LP, IASI, MLS, ALADIN, GEOs) to study the unprecedented stratospheric plume after the Hunga Tonga eruption of 15 January 2022. The plume was formed of two initial clouds at 30 and 28 km mostly composed of sub-micronic sulphate particles without ashes, washed-out within the first hours. The large amount of water vapour injected led to a fast conversion of SO2 to sulphates and the fast descent of the plume over the first three weeks. While SO2 returned to background levels by the end of January, the sulphate plume persisted until June, mainly confined between 20° N and 35° S due to the zonal symmetry of the summer stratospheric circulation at 24–25 km. As they grew through hydration and coagulation, the sedimenting sulphate particles separated from the ascending moisture entrained in the Brewer-Dobson circulation. IASI-derived sulphate aerosol optical depths show that the aerosol plume was not simply diluted and dispersed passively but rather organized in concentrated patches. ALADIN-AEOLUS winds suggest that those structures, generated by shear-induced instabilities, are associated with vorticity anomalies. They likely enhance the duration and impacts of the plume.

show abstract

“…Along with the temperature maximum near the stratopause, the direction of the strong stratospheric winds is decisive as to whether a stable surfaceto-stratosphere waveguide establishes. Ducting in the troposphere (< 15 km) or between the surface and the thermosphere generally constrains the propagation ranges to a few hundred up to around 1000 km (Drob et al, 2003), although exceptions such as the June 2009 Sarychev Peak eruption (Matoza et al, 2011a) and the very low-frequency mountainassociated waves (MAWs; Hupe et al, 2021) were found.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, besides the latest (underground) nuclear tests (e.g., Assink et al, 2016;Koch and Pilger, 2019), also accidental explosions are detected by the infrasound stations (e.g., Ceranna et al, 2009;Green et al, 2011;Pilger et al, 2021a). Moreover, a variety of natural sources is captured by the sensors, including large meteorites entering the Earth's atmosphere (e.g., Arrowsmith et al, 2008;Le Pichon et al, 2013;Pilger et al, 2020), volcanic eruptions (e.g., Campus, 2006;Dabrowa et al, 2011;Matoza et al, 2013Matoza et al, , 2019Marchetti et al, 2019), and microbaroms from the oceans (e.g., Landès et al, 2014;De Carlo et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A focus is on the frequency range of microbaroms (0.1-0.6 Hz), as these are a quasi-continuous, coherent ambient noise source at the majority of infrasound stations and thus convenient for probing the stratospheric circulation (e.g., Landès et al, 2012;Assink et al, 2014;Ceranna et al, 2019). We additionally provide a low-frequency product (0.02-0.07 Hz), which covers phenomena such as MAWs (e.g., Hupe et al, 2021) and aurora infrasound (e.g., Wilson et al, 2010), and a highfrequency product (1-3 Hz) that particularly covers surf and transient events. The latter product also includes signatures of volcanic eruptions, while volcano infrasound can generally feature a broad frequency range including the very low frequencies and the microbarom range (e.g., Matoza et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

International Monitoring System infrasound data products for atmospheric studies and civilian applications

Hupe¹,

Ceranna²,

Pichon

et al. 2022

Earth Syst. Sci. Data

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The International Monitoring System (IMS) was established in the late 1990s for verification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Upon completion, 60 infrasound stations distributed over the globe will monitor the Earth's atmosphere for low-frequency pressure waves. In this study, we present advanced infrasound data products of the 53 currently certified IMS infrasound stations for atmospheric studies and civilian applications. For this purpose, 18 years of raw IMS infrasound waveform data (2003–2020) were reprocessed using the Progressive Multi-Channel Correlation (PMCC) method. A one-third octave frequency band configuration between 0.01 and 4 Hz was chosen to run this array-processing algorithm which detects coherent infrasound waves within the background noise. From the comprehensive detection lists, four products were derived for each of the certified 53 IMS infrasound stations. The four products cover different frequency ranges and are provided at the following different temporal resolutions: a very low-frequency set (0.02–0.07 Hz, 30 min; https://doi.org/10.25928/bgrseis_bblf-ifsd, Hupe et al., 2021a), two so-called microbarom frequency sets – covering both the lower (0.15–0.35 Hz, 15 min; https://doi.org/10.25928/bgrseis_mblf-ifsd, Hupe et al., 2021b) and a higher (0.45–0.65 Hz, 15 min; https://doi.org/10.25928/bgrseis_mbhf-ifsd, Hupe et al., 2021c) part – named after the dominant ambient noise of interacting ocean waves that are quasi-continuously detected at IMS stations, and observations with center frequencies of 1 to 3 Hz (5 min), called the high-frequency product (https://doi.org/10.25928/bgrseis_bbhf-ifsd, Hupe et al., 2021d). Within these frequency ranges and time windows, the dominant repetitive signal directions are summarized. Along with several detection parameters, calculated quantities for assessing the relative quality of the products are provided. The validity of the data products is demonstrated through example case studies of recent events that produced infrasound detected at IMS infrasound stations and through a global assessment and summary of the products. The four infrasound data products cover globally repeating infrasound sources such as ocean ambient noise or persistently active volcanoes, which have previously been suggested as sources for probing the winds in the middle atmosphere. Therefore, our infrasound data products open up the IMS observations also to user groups who do not have unconstrained access to IMS data or who are unfamiliar with infrasound data processing using the PMCC method. These types of data products could potentially serve as a basis for volcanic eruption early warning systems in the future.

show abstract

IMS observations of infrasound and acoustic-gravity waves produced by the January 2022 volcanic eruption of Hunga, Tonga: A global analysis

Cited by 80 publications

References 31 publications

Energetic output of the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption from pressure measurements

Energetic output of the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption from pressure measurements

The evolution and dynamics of the Hunga Tonga plume in the stratosphere

International Monitoring System infrasound data products for atmospheric studies and civilian applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About