RobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3983 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 2677 times:
Katla isn't under a glacier so even if it does blow it's unlikely to cause anywhere near the disruption that Eyja' did. The problem with Eyja' was the lava hitting the glacier ice that caused a shitload of ash.
A very good piece here on the next big thing out of Iceland.
"There have been more than 500 tremors in and around the caldera of Katla just in the last month, which suggests the motion of magma. And that certainly suggests an eruption may be imminent."
"All they know is that Katla usually erupts every 40 to 80 years, which means the next significant event is long overdue."
Now I know that Eyjafjallajokull had the weather in its favor and was classed as a minor event but it seems this one could be a big daddy.
At least it will take our minds off the Euro Crisis.
No worries. Although there is no reason to think that this volcano will erupt in the next weeks it is nonetheless overdue and has been showing signs that it is ready to erupt.
As a matter of fact it had a very small eruption this summer that didn't breach the glacier above. It did however cause a small flood that destroyed a crucial bridge. It simply carried it away. The bridge was built in a way so that full eruption would destroy the bridge. However the authorities did not expect a flood that was not Amazon like in size. This was probably only a hundredth of the size of a full Katla flood. It did however carry a bridge away in it's entirety.
eaa3 From Iceland, joined Sep 2007, 1120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 2591 times:
Quoting RobK (Reply 2): Katla isn't under a glacier so even if it does blow it's unlikely to cause anywhere near the disruption that Eyja' did. The problem with Eyja' was the lava hitting the glacier ice that caused a shitload of ash.
Katla is indeed under a much larger glacier than Eyjafjallajökull. It is also much thicker, or about 700 meters thick.