Supervolcano Monitoring Advances May Let Scientists Warn of Future Eruptions

By Science Reporter
April 29, 2025

Recent advances in geology and volcanology have brought new attention to the threats posed by supervolcanoes, as scientists develop improved monitoring systems and prediction capabilities for these potentially catastrophic natural events.

The Inevitable Question of "When"

The geological record indicates we may be overdue for a massive volcanic eruption, with experts emphasizing the question is not if, but when. According to Markus Stoffel, a climate professor at the University of Geneva, geological evidence suggests a 1-in-6 chance of experiencing a massive eruption this century. The most recent supervolcanic event of this magnitude was Mount Tambora in Indonesia in 1815, which triggered what became known as "the year without a summer," causing global temperature drops, widespread crop failures, famine, and a cholera pandemic that killed tens of thousands.

Breakthrough in Submarine Volcano Prediction

Scientists have made significant strides in eruption forecasting at Oregon's Axial Seamount, described as "the most well-instrumented submarine volcano on the planet" according to Mark Zumberge, a geophysicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Unlike most volcanic predictions, which typically provide only hours of warning, researchers monitoring Axial Seamount have predicted a potential eruption in 2025 with months of advance notice. This breakthrough is made possible through extensive real-time monitoring data collected by devices tracking the volcano's movements, rumbling, shaking, swelling, and tilting via a seafloor cable system.

"Forecasting is only possible thanks to extensive monitoring data and knowledge of how a specific volcano behaves," explains Valerio Acocella, a volcanologist at Roma Tre University in Rome.

Climate Connection Complicates Prediction Efforts

Scientists have identified multiple ways climate change may influence volcanic activity. Research indicates that warming oceans create a stratified layer of warmer water that can affect how volcanic cooling impacts the planet. Additionally, climate change can directly influence volcanic systems, as melting ice reduces pressure on magma chambers, potentially allowing magma to rise faster. Researchers have also found evidence that extreme rainfall events—increasingly common due to climate change—can seep deep into the ground and react with magma, potentially triggering eruptions.

Advanced Prediction Methods and Machine Learning

Researchers are employing sophisticated approaches to improve eruption forecasting, according to studies published in the Journal of Applied Volcanology. One promising avenue involves machine learning algorithms to determine the predictability of eruption size based on historical data. Scientists are utilizing numerical and categorical attributes from the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program Catalog to forecast the Volcano Explosivity Index (VEI) of future eruptions. These methods attempt to mimic and formalize common geologic practices while avoiding over-parameterization by using both simple predictors based on previous eruption history and more complex machine learning approaches.

Current Volcanic Activity Worldwide

According to the Global Volcanism Program, as of February 2025, 45 volcanoes worldwide were in continuing eruption status. The program's definition of "continuing" does not necessarily mean persistent daily activity, but indicates at least intermittent eruptive events without a break of three months or more. On any given day, approximately 20 volcanoes are actively erupting around the world.

For 2024 alone, there were 74 confirmed eruptions from 65 different volcanoes, with 32 of those representing new eruptions that started during the year.

Implications for Global Preparedness

The economic impacts of a supervolcano eruption could be devastating. Under an extreme scenario similar to the Tambora eruption, economic losses could reach more than $3.6 trillion in the first year alone, according to calculations from Lloyd's. While the cooling effect from such eruptions might temporarily offset global warming trends, scientists note this would offer no lasting relief from climate change—within a few years, the planet would return to pre-eruption temperatures.

Populated areas near known supervolcano sites face particularly severe risks. Italy's Campi Flegrei, a volcanic system containing 24 craters located near Naples (home to approximately 1 million people), experienced a 4.4-magnitude earthquake in March 2025. While officials stated there were no signs of an imminent eruption, the potential impact remains concerning. If it were to erupt, it could "cover Naples and surrounding areas in ash, trigger earthquakes and landslides throughout southern Italy as well as cause widespread air pollution and acid rain," according to local reporting.

Mount Paektu: The Border Volcano Violates the Rules

Straddling the border between North Korea and China, Mount Paektu (known as Changbaishan in China) is a powerful stratovolcano with a history of catastrophic eruptions. At 2,744 meters (9,003 feet), it stands as the tallest mountain in North Korea and Northeast China, featuring a dramatic caldera filled with a crater lake known as "Heaven Lake."

The volcano's last major event, known as the "Millennium Eruption" or "Tianchi eruption," occurred in 946 CE and ranks among the most powerful volcanic eruptions in recorded history. This cataclysmic event released about 100-120 cubic kilometers of tephra and created the current caldera that houses Heaven Lake.

Recent research indicates the Millennium Eruption created plumes extending 30-40 kilometers into the stratosphere and ejected about 13-47 cubic kilometers of magma. Volcanic ash from this eruption has been found throughout the Sea of Japan, northern Japan, and as far away as Greenland.

What makes Mount Paektu particularly interesting is its location - unlike most volcanoes that form near subduction zones where tectonic plates meet, it is situated more than 500 kilometers from the nearest plate boundary. Scientists continue to debate the exact mechanism for its formation, with leading theories suggesting its origins relate to water released from a stagnant Pacific plate in the transition zone beneath northeast China.

Between 2002 and 2005, the volcano awakened with a series of small earthquakes, prompting concerns among scientists and leading to an unprecedented international scientific collaboration involving researchers from North Korea, China, the UK, and the United States. Using seismic data, researchers detected a large region of partially melted rock beneath the volcano, confirming that it remains active.

The volcano holds significant cultural importance, particularly in North Korea, where it is considered sacred and features prominently in the country's mythology and political imagery. Recently, the North Korean side of the mountain was designated a UNESCO Global Geopark, marking North Korea's first natural site to be included on this prestigious list.

With over 1.6 million people living within 100 kilometers of the volcano, scientists emphasize the importance of continued monitoring and international cooperation to better understand this potentially dangerous volcano.

Standard Early Warning Signs

Scientists at monitoring facilities like the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory closely watch for typical eruption precursors, which include strong earthquake swarms and rapid ground deformation. These warning signs typically appear days to weeks before an actual eruption. While predicting the exact timing remains challenging, monitoring systems continue to advance, offering hope for improved early warning capabilities.

SIDEBAR: Ring of Fire Versus Hotspot Volcanoes

Ring of Fire Volcanoes

The Pacific Ring of Fire is a 24,900-mile (40,000-kilometer) horseshoe-shaped zone encircling the Pacific Ocean where approximately 75% of Earth's volcanoes are located. This region accounts for about 90% of the world's earthquakes and features around 452 active and dormant volcanoes, according to National Geographic. The Ring of Fire is the result of tectonic plate interactions, where oceanic plates are subducted beneath continental plates, creating conditions for volcanic activity.

Recent Ring of Fire Eruptions:

Kanlaon Volcano (Philippines): Active during April 2025 with volcanic earthquakes, sulfur dioxide emissions ranging from 1,170 to 3,078 tonnes per day, and gas-and-steam emissions containing ash.
Suwanosejima (Japan): Continuing eruptive activity at Ontake Crater with nightly incandescence and emissions rising 400m above the crater rim in April 2025.
Mt. Kanlaon (Philippines): Erupted on June 3, 2024, displacing more than 1,000 people.
Axial Seamount (Pacific Northwest): Scientists predict a potential eruption before the end of 2025 for this underwater volcano located about 300 miles off Oregon's coast.

Hotspot Volcanoes

Hotspot volcanoes form when magma rises from fixed areas of the Earth's mantle, creating volcanic activity in the middle of tectonic plates rather than at plate boundaries. These hotspots remain relatively stationary while tectonic plates move over them, creating chains of volcanoes.

Major Hotspot Volcanoes:

Hawaiian Islands: Formed as the Pacific plate moved over a stationary hotspot, creating a chain of islands with Kauai being the oldest at 4.6 million years and the Big Island of Hawaii sitting over the active hotspot today.
Yellowstone: One of the world's largest active volcanoes, created by a plume of molten rock rising beneath Yellowstone National Park. Its first major eruption occurred 2.1 million years ago, covering over 5,790 square miles with ash.

Recent Hotspot Eruptions:

Kīlauea (Hawaii): Currently experiencing an ongoing eruption that began December 23, 2024, with 18 episodes separated by pauses in activity as of April 28, 2025. The most recent episode (18) ended on April 22, with another episode likely within 1-5 days.
Kīlauea also had shorter eruptions in 2024, including an 8.5-hour eruption on June 3 from fissures on the upper southwest rift zone, and another between September 15-20 near Nāpau Crater.
Yellowstone: While not actively erupting, the region experienced a hydrothermal explosion on July 23, 2024, resulting in the closure of Biscuit Basin for the remainder of the season.

Key Differences

Different magma types dominate in these volcanic systems. Ring of Fire eruptions typically involve basaltic magma, which has a lower resistance to flow. In contrast, supervolcanoes like Yellowstone have primarily erupted with rhyolitic magma, which is much thicker (similar consistency to asphalt) and more resistant to flow, leading to more explosive eruptions.

Recent research published in January 2025 found that Yellowstone's magma is stored in four separate reservoirs within the crust of the caldera, rather than one large blob. Scientists determined that only the northeastern region near Sour Creek Dome maintains contact with deep mantle rocks that keep the magma liquid, meaning this area could potentially remain eruptable in the distant future.

Unique Classification of Mount Paektu

Mount Paektu represents an interesting exception to the typical Ring of Fire or hotspot classification. Unlike most active volcanoes that form along tectonic plate boundaries or above stationary mantle plumes, Mount Paektu is located 500 kilometers from the nearest plate boundary. Its origins appear to be related to the subduction of the Pacific plate beneath the Eurasian plate, but through an unusual mechanism.

Seismic tomographic models show a stagnant slab within the transition zone beneath northeast China. Current theories suggest that water released from this stagnant slab creates a "big mantle wedge," leading to upwelling of hot, partially molten material beneath Mount Paektu. This unique mechanism makes Mount Paektu neither a typical Ring of Fire volcano nor a hotspot volcano, but rather an example of how diverse and complex volcanic processes can be.

TECHNICAL SIDEBAR: Advanced Monitoring Technologies Revolutionizing Volcanic Prediction

Space-Based Monitoring with InSAR

Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) has emerged as a game-changing technology for volcano monitoring over the past decade. This satellite-based technique captures ground deformation by analyzing radar images taken during different passes over the same area. Unlike optical systems, radar waves can penetrate clouds and work in darkness, providing critical monitoring capabilities during adverse weather conditions.

The latest generation of radar satellites has revolutionized Earth's surface deformation monitoring with unprecedented resolution, transforming scientists' understanding of volcanic systems. These satellites produce detailed maps of ground displacement by comparing the phase of successive radar images.

Signal Processing Innovations

Modern volcanic monitoring relies on sophisticated signal processing to extract meaningful data from satellite observations. Recent advances include phase optimization algorithms, coherence bias correction, and eigenvalue decomposition techniques that efficiently reduce the negative influence of low-coherence pixels and improve optimization performance.

The field has also seen recent breakthroughs in deep learning applications, with convolutional neural networks (CNNs), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), generative adversarial networks (GANs), and Transformer networks being deployed to process the vast volumes of data generated by InSAR systems. These AI methods are enabling the automatic detection of volcanic deformation from extensive datasets.

Key Research Institutions

Several leading research institutions are advancing volcanic monitoring technology:

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates five volcano observatories, including the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO), which has pioneered many monitoring techniques. The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory is a consortium of eight organizations including USGS, University of Utah, University of Wyoming, Montana State University, and state geological surveys.
University of Hawaii collaborates with HVO on monitoring technologies for Kīlauea and Mauna Loa.
University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute partners with USGS and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys in the Alaska Volcano Observatory. Their InSAR monitoring recently detected deformation of Mount Edgecumbe, a volcano previously considered inactive, prompting installation of ground-based monitoring equipment.
Cornell University - Led by Prof. Matthew Pritchard, who coordinates multi-satellite InSAR volcano observations in Latin America through collaboration with international space agencies.
University of Miami - Dr. Falk Amelung's team specializes in developing InSAR applications for volcanic deformation monitoring.
University of Leeds - Dr. Susanna Ebmeier leads research on using satellite data to understand volcanic processes.

Commercial Satellite Providers

Several commercial companies are now providing crucial data for volcanic monitoring:

Maxar Technologies (formerly DigitalGlobe) - Offers comprehensive commercial satellite imagery through its Earth Intelligence segment, providing advanced surveillance that helps industries conserve resources, enhance operations, ensure compliance, and mitigate risks.
ICEYE - A pioneer in synthetic-aperture radar technology, ICEYE is the first company to successfully launch SAR satellites weighing under 100 kg. Their radar satellite imaging service provides multiple daily coverage regardless of weather conditions. The company recently demonstrated its capabilities by monitoring potential volcanic activity in Iceland through coherent pairs with short time intervals, allowing detection of subtle ground deformations.
Planet Labs - Operates a constellation of small satellites that provide frequent Earth imagery, useful for tracking volcanic changes.
Airbus Defence and Space - Provides high-resolution satellite imagery through its Pléiades Neo constellation.
L3Harris Geospatial - Specializes in scientifically validated geospatial solutions across multiple industries, developing custom analytics and high-volume processing solutions using advanced software technologies.

International Coordination

The Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) has been instrumental in coordinating volcanic monitoring efforts. Following the 2012 Santorini Report on satellite Earth Observation and Geohazards, CEOS developed a pilot project (2013-2017) demonstrating how satellite observations can monitor large numbers of volcanoes cost-effectively, especially in areas with scarce instrumentation or difficult access.

The project involved collaboration between volcano observatories and international space agencies (ESA, CSA, ASI, DLR, JAXA, NASA, CNES), ensuring the most useful data were collected at each volcano and communicated to local institutions in a timely fashion.

Future Directions

The next generation of volcanic monitoring will likely integrate multiple data streams, combining satellite observations with ground-based sensors and machine learning to improve prediction accuracy. With the rapid growth in data scale, there is an urgent need for efficient and accurate automated detection methods that can significantly improve processing speed and analytical precision. These technologies will provide stronger technical support for geophysical research and potentially save lives through improved early warning systems.

Sources:

CNN. "The next massive volcanic eruption is coming. It will cause chaos the world is not prepared for." December 24, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/24/climate/massive-volcano-eruption-climate/index.html
U.S. Geological Survey. "How far in advance could scientists predict an eruption of the Yellowstone volcano?" Retrieved April 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-far-advance-could-scientists-predict-eruption-yellowstone-volcano
Science News. "Scientists predict an undersea volcano eruption near Oregon in 2025." December 27, 2024. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-undersea-volcano-eruption
Global Volcanism Program. "Current Eruptions." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://volcano.si.edu/gvp_currenteruptions.cfm
The Week. "6 dangerous volcanoes that could shut down the world." April 23, 2010 (Updated 2025). https://theweek.com/world/495053/6-volcanoes-that-could-shut-down-the-world
Journal of Applied Volcanology. "How big will the next eruption be?" Retrieved April 2025. https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-022-00115-0
Global Volcanism Program. "What was erupting in the year...?" Accessed April 29, 2025. https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eruptionsbyyear&checkyear=2024
HowStuffWorks. "The Ring of Fire Is the Pacific's Volcanic Hotspot." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/ring-of-fire.htm
Wikipedia. "Ring of Fire." Last updated March 19, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire
National Geographic. "Plate Tectonics and the Ring of Fire." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plate-tectonics-ring-fire/
Oregon State University. "Hotspot Volcanoes - Hawaii and Yellowstone Lesson #9." December 10, 2018. https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/hot-spot-volcanoes-hawaii-and-yellowstone-lesson-9
MIRA Safety. "Yellowstone Volcano: Eruption Risks and Preparedness in 2025." September 13, 2024. https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/yellowstone-volcano
U.S. Geological Survey. "Kīlauea - Volcano Updates." April 28, 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kilauea/volcano-updates
Wikipedia. "Kīlauea." Last updated April 22, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%ABlauea
Live Science. "We finally know where the Yellowstone volcano will erupt next." January 9, 2025. https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/volcanos/we-finally-know-where-the-yellowstone-volcano-will-erupt-next
The Washington Post. "Will Yellowstone National Park erupt? Scientists have new answers." January 6, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/01/01/yellowstone-national-park-volcanic-activity/
Popular Mechanics. "One Of the Most Active Volcanoes In the World Is About to Blow." January 29, 2025. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a63591853/axial-seamount-2025-eruption/
U.S. Geological Survey. "InSAR—Satellite-based technique captures overall deformation "picture"." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/insar-satellite-based-technique-captures-overall-deformation-picture
Nature Communications. "How satellite InSAR has grown from opportunistic science to routine monitoring over the last decade." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17587-6
MDPI Remote Sensing. "Advances in InSAR Imaging and Data Processing." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/17/4307/htm
MDPI Remote Sensing. "Deep Learning for Automatic Detection of Volcanic and Earthquake-Related InSAR Deformation." February 18, 2025. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/17/4/686
Journal of Applied Volcanology. "Towards coordinated regional multi-satellite InSAR volcano observations." 2018. https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-018-0074-0
U.S. Geological Survey. "USGS operates five U.S. Volcano Observatories." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/usgs-operates-five-us-volcano-observatories
U.S. Geological Survey. "Volcano Watch — Volcano monitoring from space: InSAR time series success in Alaska." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/news/volcano-watch-volcano-monitoring-space-insar-time-series-success-alaska
Markets and Markets. "Satellite Data Services Companies." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ResearchInsight/satellite-data-service-market.asp
ICEYE. "ICEYE Interferometric Analysis: Monitoring Potential Volcanic Eruption in Iceland." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.iceye.com/blog/iceye-interferometric-analysis-monitoring-potential-volcanic-eruption-in-iceland
Global Volcanism Program. "Changbaishan." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=305060
Wikipedia. "Paektu Mountain." Last updated March 28, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paektu_Mountain
Wikipedia. "946 eruption of Paektu Mountain." Last updated March 14, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/946_eruption_of_Paektu_Mountain
NASA Earth Observatory. "Mount Paektu: North Korea's Slumbering Giant." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/88020/mount-paektu-north-koreas-slumbering-giant
Nature. "North Korea lets scientists peer inside dangerous volcano." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19751
Geoscientist. "Where science and diplomacy meet." March 3, 2021. https://geoscientist.online/sections/features/mount-paektu-where-science-and-diplomacy-meet/
Communications Earth & Environment. "Eruption plumes extended more than 30 km in altitude in both phases of the Millennium eruption of Paektu (Changbaishan) volcano." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01162-0
CNN. "North Korea's sacred Mount Paektu designated as UNESCO Global Geopark." April 15, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/15/travel/north-korea-mount-paektu-unesco-geopark-intl-hnk/index.html
National Geographic. "Sacred Volcano in North Korea May Be Waiting to Blow." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/160415-sacred-volcano-north-korea-waiting-eruption-science
Science Advances. "Evidence for partial melt in the crust beneath Mt. Paektu (Changbaishan), Democratic People's Republic of Korea and China." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1501513pted with rhyolitic magma, which is much thicker (similar consistency to asphalt) and more resistant to flow, leading to more explosive eruptions.

TECHNICAL SIDEBAR: Advanced Monitoring Technologies Revolutionizing Volcanic Prediction

Space-Based Monitoring with InSAR

Signal Processing Innovations

Key Research Institutions

Several leading research institutions are advancing volcanic monitoring technology:

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates five volcano observatories, including the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO), which has pioneered many monitoring techniques. The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory is a consortium of eight organizations including USGS, University of Utah, University of Wyoming, Montana State University, and state geological surveys.
University of Hawaii collaborates with HVO on monitoring technologies for Kīlauea and Mauna Loa.
University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute partners with USGS and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys in the Alaska Volcano Observatory. Their InSAR monitoring recently detected deformation of Mount Edgecumbe, a volcano previously considered inactive, prompting installation of ground-based monitoring equipment.
Cornell University - Led by Prof. Matthew Pritchard, who coordinates multi-satellite InSAR volcano observations in Latin America through collaboration with international space agencies.
University of Miami - Dr. Falk Amelung's team specializes in developing InSAR applications for volcanic deformation monitoring.
University of Leeds - Dr. Susanna Ebmeier leads research on using satellite data to understand volcanic processes.

Commercial Satellite Providers

Several commercial companies are now providing crucial data for volcanic monitoring:

Maxar Technologies (formerly DigitalGlobe) - Offers comprehensive commercial satellite imagery through its Earth Intelligence segment, providing advanced surveillance that helps industries conserve resources, enhance operations, ensure compliance, and mitigate risks.
ICEYE - A pioneer in synthetic-aperture radar technology, ICEYE is the first company to successfully launch SAR satellites weighing under 100 kg. Their radar satellite imaging service provides multiple daily coverage regardless of weather conditions. The company recently demonstrated its capabilities by monitoring potential volcanic activity in Iceland through coherent pairs with short time intervals, allowing detection of subtle ground deformations.
Planet Labs - Operates a constellation of small satellites that provide frequent Earth imagery, useful for tracking volcanic changes.
Airbus Defence and Space - Provides high-resolution satellite imagery through its Pléiades Neo constellation.
L3Harris Geospatial - Specializes in scientifically validated geospatial solutions across multiple industries, developing custom analytics and high-volume processing solutions using advanced software technologies.

International Coordination

Future Directions

Sources:

CNN. "The next massive volcanic eruption is coming. It will cause chaos the world is not prepared for." December 24, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/24/climate/massive-volcano-eruption-climate/index.html
U.S. Geological Survey. "How far in advance could scientists predict an eruption of the Yellowstone volcano?" Retrieved April 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-far-advance-could-scientists-predict-eruption-yellowstone-volcano
Science News. "Scientists predict an undersea volcano eruption near Oregon in 2025." December 27, 2024. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-undersea-volcano-eruption
Global Volcanism Program. "Current Eruptions." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://volcano.si.edu/gvp_currenteruptions.cfm
The Week. "6 dangerous volcanoes that could shut down the world." April 23, 2010 (Updated 2025). https://theweek.com/world/495053/6-volcanoes-that-could-shut-down-the-world
Journal of Applied Volcanology. "How big will the next eruption be?" Retrieved April 2025. https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-022-00115-0
Global Volcanism Program. "What was erupting in the year...?" Accessed April 29, 2025. https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eruptionsbyyear&checkyear=2024
HowStuffWorks. "The Ring of Fire Is the Pacific's Volcanic Hotspot." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/ring-of-fire.htm
Wikipedia. "Ring of Fire." Last updated March 19, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire
National Geographic. "Plate Tectonics and the Ring of Fire." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plate-tectonics-ring-fire/
Oregon State University. "Hotspot Volcanoes - Hawaii and Yellowstone Lesson #9." December 10, 2018. https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/hot-spot-volcanoes-hawaii-and-yellowstone-lesson-9
MIRA Safety. "Yellowstone Volcano: Eruption Risks and Preparedness in 2025." September 13, 2024. https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/yellowstone-volcano
U.S. Geological Survey. "Kīlauea - Volcano Updates." April 28, 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kilauea/volcano-updates
Wikipedia. "Kīlauea." Last updated April 22, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%ABlauea
Live Science. "We finally know where the Yellowstone volcano will erupt next." January 9, 2025. https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/volcanos/we-finally-know-where-the-yellowstone-volcano-will-erupt-next
The Washington Post. "Will Yellowstone National Park erupt? Scientists have new answers." January 6, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/01/01/yellowstone-national-park-volcanic-activity/
Popular Mechanics. "One Of the Most Active Volcanoes In the World Is About to Blow." January 29, 2025. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a63591853/axial-seamount-2025-eruption/
U.S. Geological Survey. "InSAR—Satellite-based technique captures overall deformation "picture"." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/insar-satellite-based-technique-captures-overall-deformation-picture
Nature Communications. "How satellite InSAR has grown from opportunistic science to routine monitoring over the last decade." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17587-6
MDPI Remote Sensing. "Advances in InSAR Imaging and Data Processing." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/17/4307/htm
MDPI Remote Sensing. "Deep Learning for Automatic Detection of Volcanic and Earthquake-Related InSAR Deformation." February 18, 2025. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/17/4/686
Journal of Applied Volcanology. "Towards coordinated regional multi-satellite InSAR volcano observations." 2018. https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-018-0074-0
U.S. Geological Survey. "USGS operates five U.S. Volcano Observatories." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/usgs-operates-five-us-volcano-observatories
U.S. Geological Survey. "Volcano Watch — Volcano monitoring from space: InSAR time series success in Alaska." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/news/volcano-watch-volcano-monitoring-space-insar-time-series-success-alaska
Markets and Markets. "Satellite Data Services Companies." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ResearchInsight/satellite-data-service-market.asp
ICEYE. "ICEYE Interferometric Analysis: Monitoring Potential Volcanic Eruption in Iceland." Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.iceye.com/blog/iceye-interferometric-analysis-monitoring-potential-volcanic-eruption-in-iceland Blow." January 29, 2025. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a63591853/axial-seamount-2025-eruption/

Advances in InSAR Technology for Volcanic Eruption Prediction: A Technical Review

Authors: InSAR Research Group
Date: April 29, 2025

Abstract

This paper reviews recent advances in Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) technology for volcanic eruption prediction, with a focus on developments from 2020-2025. We examine the evolution of satellite systems, data processing methodologies, and integration with machine learning algorithms that have revolutionized our ability to monitor and forecast volcanic activity. The paper highlights how modern InSAR constellations enable unprecedented temporal and spatial resolution, allowing for early detection of magmatic intrusions and surface deformation patterns. We explore case studies demonstrating successful application of these technologies and discuss the challenges and future directions in this rapidly evolving field. The integration of deep learning with InSAR data processing has emerged as a particularly promising approach for automated detection of volcanic deformation signals in large datasets, potentially transforming volcano monitoring capabilities worldwide.

Keywords: InSAR, Volcanic Eruption Prediction, Remote Sensing, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, SAR Satellites

1. Introduction

Volcanic eruptions represent significant natural hazards that can cause extensive damage to property, infrastructure, and human life. Early detection and accurate prediction of volcanic activity are critical for effective hazard mitigation and disaster response. In recent decades, satellite-based remote sensing technologies, particularly Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), have emerged as powerful tools for monitoring volcanic systems globally.

InSAR refers to the technique of using radar signals from Earth-orbiting satellites to measure changes in land-surface altitude with high precision. By comparing the phase of radar waves between two satellite passes over the same area, InSAR can detect surface displacements of a few millimeters to centimeters, providing crucial information about subsurface magmatic processes. This capability is particularly valuable for monitoring volcanoes in remote or inaccessible regions where ground-based monitoring networks are limited or nonexistent.

The past five years have witnessed significant advancements in InSAR technology for volcanic monitoring, driven by:

Deployment of new satellite constellations with improved spatial and temporal resolution
Development of sophisticated signal processing techniques
Integration of machine learning and artificial intelligence for automated analysis
Enhanced data integration frameworks combining InSAR with other monitoring techniques

This review paper aims to synthesize these recent developments and their implications for volcanic eruption prediction, highlighting both technological innovations and real-world applications. We also identify ongoing challenges and future research directions in this rapidly evolving field.

2. Evolution of Satellite Systems for InSAR

2.1 Historical Development

InSAR techniques were first demonstrated in the early 1990s, with the European Space Agency's (ESA) ERS-1 satellite capturing surface deformation caused by the 1992 Landers, California earthquake. Since then, the quality and quantity of available images have increased dramatically, leading to significant improvements in our ability to monitor volcanic systems.

Early satellite systems such as ERS-1/2, ENVISAT, and RADARSAT-1 provided important foundational capabilities but were limited by relatively long repeat intervals (35-46 days), coarse resolution, and limited global coverage. These constraints often made it difficult to capture rapid deformation events associated with volcanic unrest.

2.2 Current Operational Satellite Systems

Recent years have seen an explosion in the number and capabilities of SAR satellites available for volcanic monitoring. The most significant systems include:

2.2.1 Sentinel-1 Constellation

The European Space Agency's Sentinel-1 constellation, comprising Sentinel-1A (launched 2014) and Sentinel-1B (launched 2016), represents a major advancement in the systematic monitoring of ground deformation. Operating in C-band (5.405 GHz), these satellites provide:

6-day repeat cycle (when both satellites are operational)
Global coverage with consistent acquisition strategy
Open data policy allowing free access to imagery
Interferometric Wide (IW) swath mode with 250 km swath width and 5×20 m spatial resolution

The consistent acquisition strategy and open data policy of Sentinel-1 have been particularly transformative, enabling routine monitoring of almost all of Earth's ~1,500 active volcanoes.

2.2.2 ICEYE Constellation

ICEYE has pioneered the development of small SAR satellites, launching over 30 spacecraft since 2018 with plans for 15 additional satellites in 2024-2025. These X-band satellites offer unprecedented revisit capabilities:

Daily and even sub-daily revisit capability at the same location
Resolution up to 25 cm with their advanced 1200 MHz bandwidth radar system
Rapid tasking flexibility for emergency response
Ability to see through clouds, smoke, ash, and darkness

The high revisit frequency of the ICEYE constellation makes it particularly valuable for monitoring rapidly evolving volcanic processes.

2.2.3 NISAR (NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar)

The NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) mission, scheduled for launch in March 2025, represents a significant advancement in multi-frequency SAR capabilities. NISAR will feature:

Dual-frequency capability with both L-band (1.25 GHz; 24 cm wavelength) and S-band (3.20 GHz; 9.3 cm wavelength)
12-day global mapping capability
Dedicated focus on understanding natural hazards including volcanic activity
Expected mission life of three years

The dual-frequency capability of NISAR is particularly valuable for volcanic monitoring, as it allows for complementary measurements that can penetrate different types of surface cover and reveal deformation at varying depths.

2.2.4 Other Significant Systems

Additional operational systems contributing to volcanic monitoring include:

ALOS-2/PALSAR-2 (JAXA, Japan): L-band system with 14-day repeat cycle
TerraSAR-X/TanDEM-X (DLR, Germany): X-band system with 11-day repeat cycle
COSMO-SkyMed Constellation (ASI, Italy): X-band system with 1-16 day repeat capability
Capella Space (Commercial): X-band constellation with high resolution and rapid revisit capabilities
Umbra (Commercial): X-band system focusing on high-resolution imaging

2.3 Virtual Constellation Concept

One of the most significant developments in recent years has been the coordination of these diverse satellite systems into a "virtual constellation" for volcanic monitoring. This approach, championed by initiatives like the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS), enables:

Optimized allocation of satellite resources based on volcanic activity levels
Improved temporal coverage through coordinated acquisitions
Complementary measurements across different wavelengths and resolutions
Cost-effective monitoring of large numbers of volcanoes

The virtual constellation approach has been particularly successful in regions like Latin America, where coordinated multi-satellite observations have been used by volcano observatories to determine alert levels, validate ground sensor data, guide instrument deployment, and improve situational awareness.

3. Advanced Signal Processing Techniques

Modern InSAR applications for volcanic monitoring benefit from numerous signal processing advances that improve measurement accuracy and reliability.

3.1 Multi-Temporal InSAR Methods

Multi-temporal InSAR (MTInSAR) techniques have advanced significantly, enabling more robust time-series analysis of volcanic deformation:

Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI): Identifies stable radar reflectors to track millimeter-scale deformation over time
Small Baseline Subset (SBAS): Uses multiple interferograms with small temporal and spatial baselines to reduce decorrelation effects
SqueeSAR: Combines PS and distributed scatterer analysis for improved measurement density
ISBAS (Intermittent SBAS): Extends SBAS to partially coherent areas, valuable for vegetated volcanic regions

These techniques have substantially improved our ability to detect subtle precursory deformation signals at volcanoes where conventional InSAR might struggle due to decorrelation issues.

3.2 Atmospheric Correction Methods

Atmospheric effects represent one of the most significant challenges for InSAR measurements of volcanic deformation. Recent advances in atmospheric correction include:

Weather model-based corrections using global atmospheric models
Phase-based tropospheric correction algorithms
The General Atmospheric Correction Online Service for InSAR (GACOS)
Machine learning approaches for atmospheric artifact identification and removal

Effective atmospheric correction is particularly important for volcanic monitoring, as atmospheric artifacts can mimic or obscure genuine deformation signals.

3.3 Phase Unwrapping Improvements

Phase unwrapping—the process of resolving 2π ambiguities in wrapped interferograms—has seen significant methodological improvements:

Statistical-cost network-flow algorithms
Region-growing techniques with adaptive filtering
Machine learning approaches for complex unwrapping scenarios
Methods specifically designed to handle the high deformation gradients often found at active volcanoes

These advances have improved the ability to accurately measure large deformation signals in regions with complex topography, which is particularly relevant for volcanic environments.

4. Machine Learning Integration with InSAR

The integration of machine learning (ML) techniques with InSAR represents perhaps the most transformative recent development in volcanic monitoring.

4.1 Automated Detection of Volcanic Deformation

Machine learning algorithms, particularly deep learning approaches, have demonstrated impressive capabilities for automatically detecting volcanic deformation in large InSAR datasets:

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for identifying deformation patterns in wrapped interferograms
Transfer learning strategies using pre-trained networks like AlexNet
Feature extraction techniques to identify diagnostic characteristics of volcanic deformation
Anomaly detection algorithms to flag unusual deformation patterns

These approaches are particularly valuable given the massive volume of data generated by modern SAR constellations, which far exceeds human capacity for manual analysis.

4.2 Deep Learning Architectures for InSAR Analysis

Several deep learning architectures have proven effective for InSAR analysis:

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs): Particularly effective for spatial pattern recognition in interferograms
Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs): Valuable for analyzing time-series data to identify temporal patterns
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): Used for tasks like atmospheric noise simulation and removal
Transformer Networks: Emerging architecture showing promise for capturing long-range dependencies in InSAR time series

These architectures are being applied across the InSAR processing chain, from phase filtering and unwrapping to deformation detection and classification.

4.3 Time Series Analysis and Forecasting

ML techniques have demonstrated significant potential for analyzing InSAR time series and forecasting volcanic activity:

Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks for predicting deformation trends
Gaussian Process regression for uncertainty quantification in deformation forecasts
Change point detection algorithms for identifying shifts in deformation patterns
Universal machine learning approaches using seismic features combined with deformation data

These methods enable more sophisticated analysis of the temporal evolution of volcanic systems, potentially providing earlier warning of impending eruptions.

5. Case Studies: Successful Applications

Several case studies illustrate the successful application of advanced InSAR techniques for volcanic monitoring and eruption prediction.

5.1 Axial Seamount: Submarine Volcano Prediction

The Axial Seamount, located approximately 470 km off the Oregon coast, represents one of the most significant successes in eruption forecasting using InSAR and related technologies. Using a suite of monitoring devices including seafloor pressure sensors (which measure vertical deformation similar to InSAR), scientists successfully predicted the 2015 eruption and have made predictions about a potential eruption in 2025.

While conventional satellite InSAR cannot directly observe the submarine volcano, the methodologies developed for integrating deformation measurements with other monitoring data and predictive models have direct parallels to satellite InSAR applications.

5.2 Sierra Negra Volcano, Galápagos

The 2018 eruption of Sierra Negra volcano in the Galápagos Islands serves as an excellent demonstration of InSAR's predictive capabilities. InSAR monitoring revealed accelerating inflation that began about a year before the eruption. Machine learning algorithms applied to this data successfully flagged the anomalous inflation pattern, which could have provided early warning had the system been operational at the time.

This case demonstrates the potential for automated systems to continuously process InSAR data and generate alerts when concerning patterns are detected.

5.3 Hakone Volcano, Japan

The 2015 phreatic eruption of Hakone Volcano in Japan provides an instructive example of how InSAR analysis can detect the route of hydrothermal fluid to the surface prior to an eruption. ALOS-2/PALSAR-2 images revealed very localized swelling around steam wells, indicating shallow hydrothermal activity.

InSAR analysis in this case helped identify the opening of a crack at an elevation of about 530-830 m, likely occurring at the time of the eruption. Significantly, this crack was located beneath previously mapped fissures, suggesting it was a preexisting structure reactivated during the eruption.

5.4 Mount Paektu/Changbaishan, North Korea/China Border

Recent InSAR monitoring of Mount Paektu (also known as Changbaishan), a potentially dangerous volcano on the border between North Korea and China, demonstrates the value of InSAR for international collaboration in volcano monitoring. Analysis of L-band data revealed that the volcano is currently active and experiencing a phase of uplift during 2018-2020.

This case is particularly significant as it demonstrates InSAR's ability to monitor volcanoes in regions where international tensions might otherwise limit scientific cooperation. The collaboration between scientists from North Korea, the UK, the United States, and China to study this volcano represents an important diplomatic as well as scientific achievement.

6. Challenges and Limitations

Despite significant advances, several challenges and limitations remain in the application of InSAR for volcanic eruption prediction.

6.1 Technical Challenges

Coherence loss in vegetated areas: Many volcanoes are located in regions with dense vegetation, leading to coherence loss in interferograms. While L-band systems offer improved penetration, this remains a significant limitation.
Atmospheric effects: Despite improved correction methods, atmospheric artifacts continue to pose challenges, particularly in tropical regions with high water vapor content.
Spatial and temporal aliasing: Rapid deformation events may be missed or misinterpreted if they occur between satellite acquisitions.
Limited sensitivity to certain deformation components: InSAR primarily measures displacement in the satellite line-of-sight, with limited sensitivity to north-south horizontal motion.

6.2 Data Management and Processing Challenges

Big data issues: The volume of SAR data generated by modern satellite constellations creates significant storage and processing challenges.
Real-time processing requirements: Operational eruption forecasting requires rapid data processing and analysis, which remains challenging for complex InSAR processing chains.
Integration with other monitoring data: Effective eruption forecasting requires integration of InSAR with other monitoring techniques, which remains technically challenging.

6.3 Interpretation Challenges

Complex relationship between deformation and eruption: Not all deformation leads to eruption, and not all eruptions are preceded by detectable deformation.
Model non-uniqueness: Multiple source models can often explain the same observed deformation pattern, creating uncertainty in interpretation.
Limited historical data for some volcanoes: Machine learning approaches require substantial training data, which may be limited for many volcanoes.
Explainability of ML algorithms: As more sophisticated ML algorithms are deployed, ensuring their interpretability and trustworthiness becomes increasingly important.

7. Future Directions

Several promising research directions are likely to drive future advances in InSAR-based volcanic eruption prediction.

7.1 Technological Advancements

New satellite systems: Upcoming missions like NISAR will provide unprecedented capabilities for volcanic monitoring.
Expanded commercial constellations: Companies like ICEYE continue to expand their constellations, promising even more frequent revisit capabilities.
Improved processing algorithms: Continued development of advanced signal processing techniques will enhance measurement accuracy and reliability.
Edge computing: Deployment of processing capabilities closer to data acquisition points may enable more rapid analysis and response.

7.2 Machine Learning Innovations

Physics-informed machine learning: Hybrid approaches that combine data-driven techniques with physical models of volcanic systems
Explainable AI: Development of interpretable ML approaches that provide insight into the reasoning behind predictions
Automated alerting systems: End-to-end systems that continuously monitor InSAR data and generate alerts when concerning patterns are detected
Transfer learning between volcanoes: Approaches that leverage knowledge gained from well-monitored volcanoes to improve forecasting at less-studied systems

7.3 Integration and Coordination

Multi-parameter data fusion: Enhanced techniques for integrating InSAR with seismic, gas, thermal, and other monitoring data
International coordination: Expanded efforts to coordinate satellite tasking and data sharing across international boundaries
Democratization of access: Continued development of user-friendly tools that make InSAR data more accessible to volcano observatories worldwide
Operational implementation: Moving from research capabilities to operational eruption forecasting systems integrated with disaster management frameworks

8. Conclusion

The past five years have witnessed remarkable advances in InSAR technology for volcanic eruption prediction, driven by new satellite systems, sophisticated signal processing techniques, and the integration of machine learning approaches. These developments have significantly enhanced our ability to monitor volcanic systems globally and detect precursory deformation patterns that may indicate impending eruptions.

The emergence of commercial SAR constellations providing daily or sub-daily revisit capabilities, combined with sophisticated machine learning approaches for automated analysis, represents a paradigm shift in volcanic monitoring capabilities. The upcoming NISAR mission, with its dual-frequency capability, promises to further extend these capabilities.

Despite these advances, significant challenges remain, particularly in data management, real-time processing, and the complex relationship between observed deformation and eruption likelihood. Addressing these challenges will require continued research and development across multiple disciplines, from satellite engineering to signal processing to volcanology.

Looking forward, the continued integration of InSAR with other monitoring techniques, combined with physics-informed machine learning approaches, holds great promise for improving eruption forecasting capabilities. As these technologies mature and become more accessible to volcano observatories worldwide, they have the potential to significantly reduce the risks posed by volcanic eruptions to communities around the globe.

References

Anantrasirichai, N., Biggs, J., Albino, F., Hill, P., & Bull, D. (2018). Application of Machine Learning to Classification of Volcanic Deformation in Routinely Generated InSAR Data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123(8), 6592-6606. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB015911
Biggs, J., & Pritchard, M. E. (2017). Global Volcano Monitoring: What Does It Mean When Volcanoes Deform? Elements, 13(1), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.2113/gselements.13.1.17
Doke, R., Harada, M., Mannen, K., Itadera, K., & Takenaka, J. (2018). InSAR analysis for detecting the route of hydrothermal fluid to the surface during the 2015 phreatic eruption of Hakone Volcano, Japan. Earth, Planets and Space, 70(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0834-4
Gaddes, M. E., Hooper, A., Bagnardi, M., Inman, H., & Albino, F. (2019). Blind Testing of Remotely Sensed Magma Movement Applied to the 2018 Sierra Negra Eruption. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 124(11), 11505-11526. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB017519
Huang, M. H., Yun, S. H., Fielding, E. J., Simons, M., Liang, C., Agram, P. S., & Handley, H. K. (2025). A New Age of SAR: How Can Commercial Smallsat Constellations Contribute to NASA's Surface Deformation and Change Mission? Earth and Space Science, e2024EA003832. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EA003832
ICEYE. (2024). ICEYE launches four new satellites into orbit, expanding its own constellation and serving customer missions. https://www.iceye.com/press/press-releases/iceye-launches-four-new-satellites-into-orbit-expanding-its-own-constellation-and-serving-customer-missions
McGraw, Z., DallaSanta, K., Polvani, L., Tsigaridis, K., Orbe, C., & Bauer, S.E. (2024). Severe global cooling after volcanic super-eruptions? The answer hinges on unknown aerosol size. Journal of Climate, 37(4), 1449-1464. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-23-0116.1
NASA. (2025). NASA-ISRO SAR Mission (NISAR). https://nisar.jpl.nasa.gov/
Pagli, C., Wang, H., Socquet, A., & Drouin, V. (2023). Editorial: InSAR for volcanoes and tectonics. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11, 1156668. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2023.1156668
Pritchard, M. E., Biggs, J., Wauthier, C., Sansosti, E., Arnold, D. W. D., Delgado, F., Ebmeier, S. K., Henderson, S. T., Stephens, K., Cooper, C., Wnuk, K., Amelung, F., Aguilar, V., Mothes, P., Macedo, O., Lara, L. E., Poland, M. P., & Zoffoli, S. (2018). Towards coordinated regional multi-satellite InSAR volcano observations: results from the Latin America pilot project. Journal of Applied Volcanology, 7(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-018-0074-0
Rey-Devesa, J., Del Fresno, C., Fernández, C., & De Barros, L. (2024). Universal machine learning approach to volcanic eruption forecasting using seismic features. Frontiers in Earth Science, 12, 1342468. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2024.1342468
Trasatti, E., Tolomei, C., Polcari, M., Romagnoli, C., Wang, H., Yu, C., & Xu, B. (2023). Present-day unrest at Changbaishan volcano (China/North Korea) from time series InSAR. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2023.1156668
Wu, Y., Du, J., Zhang, Y., Xu, J., Liu, D., & Zhou, X. (2022). A Deep Learning Application for Deformation Prediction from Ground-Based InSAR. Remote Sensing, 14(20), 5067. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14205067
Zhou, L., Yu, X., Zhang, Z., Jin, S., & Dong, X. (2025). Deep Learning for Automatic Detection of Volcanic and Earthquake-Related InSAR Deformation. Remote Sensing, 17(4), 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17040686