Is Mount Redoubt ready to blow? Eruption threat increases

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It’s code orange for Mount Redoubt, the Alaskan volcano whose rumblings have had geologists predicting an eruption since January.

Officials at the Alaska Volcano Observatory raised the threat level yesterday from yellow, which indicates elevated unrest, to orange, the stage just before eruption when its unrest is escalating or a volcano is emitting minor amounts of ash. Red is the highest level, when eruption is imminent or underway. Geologists had just lowered the threat level to yellow last Tuesday when they began to detect movement of magma within Redoubt’s cracks and fractures, which produces a specific signal, the Associated Press reports.

"We got a return of this stuff we call volcanic tremors," geologist Chris Waythomas told the AP. “We think it's associated with the hydrothermal system there. It's being reinvigorated."

Steam and ash from the volcano rose 15,000 feet above sea level yesterday, the AP noted. Volcanoes in Alaska typically shoot ash upward (20 years ago, a plume from Redoubt knocked out a jet’s engines); tests will show whether the ash contains new magma or remnants of old rumblings.

Redoubt is 103 miles (166 kilometers) southwest of Anchorage and is 10,200-feet (3,100 meters) tall. We’ve got more on why volcano monitoring is important and what causes a volcano to erupt.

Updated at 5:50 p.m. March 16 to correct height of Mount Redoubt.

Ash and steam plume from Mount Redoubt, March 15, 2009 by Heather Bleick, AVO/USGS

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe