Options
Hort, Matthias
Loading...
Preferred name
Hort, Matthias
4 results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- PublicationOpen AccessMeMoVolc consensual document: a review of cross-disciplinary approaches to characterizing small explosive magmatic eruptions(2015)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; A workshop entitled “Tracking and understanding volcanic emissions through cross37 disciplinary integration: A textural working group.” was held at the Université Blaise Pascal (Clermont-Ferrand, France) on the 6-7th November 2012. This workshop was supported by the European Science Foundation (ESF). The main objective of the workshop was to establish an initial advisory group to begin to define measurements, methods, formats and standards to be applied in the integration of geophysical, physical and textural data collected during volcanic eruptions so as to homogenize procedures to be applied and integrated during both past and ongoing events. The working group comprised a total of 35 scientists from six countries (France, Italy, Great Britain, Germany, Switzerland and Iceland). The group comprised eleven advisors from the textural analysis field, eleven from deposit studies, seven geochemists and six geophysicists. The four main aims were to discuss and define: 1) Standards, precision and measurement protocols for textural analysis; 2) Identify textural, field deposit, chemistry and geophysical parameters that can best be measured and combined; 3) Agree on the best delivery formats so that data can be sheared between, and easily used by, each group; 4) Review multi-disciplinary sampling and measurement routines currently used, and measurement standards applied, by each community. The group agreed that community-wide cross-disciplinary integration, centered on defining those measurements and formats that can be best combined, is an attainable but key global focus. Consequently, we prepared a final document to be used as the foundation for a larger, international textural working group to serve as the basis of fully realizing such a pandisciplinary goal in volcanology. Thus, we here report our initial conclusions and recommendations.605 267 - PublicationRestrictedTranslations of volcanological terms: cross-cultural standards for teaching, communication, and reporting(2017-06-20)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;When teaching at a non-English language universi- ty, we often argue that because English is the international language, students need to become familiar with English terms, even if the bulk of the class is in the native language. However, to make the meaning of the terms clear, a translation into the native language is always useful. Correct translation of terminology is even more crucial for emergency managers and decision makers who can be confronted with a confusing and inconsistently applied mix of terminology. Thus, it is im- perative to have a translation that appropriately converts the meaning of a term, while being grammatically and lexicologically correct, before the need for use. If terms are not consistently defined across all languages following indus- try standards and norms, what one person believes to be a dog, to another is a cat. However, definitions and translations of English scientific and technical terms are not always available, and language is constantly evolving. We live and work in an international world where English is the common language of multi-cultural exchange. As a result, while finding the correct translation can be difficult because we are too used to the English language terms, translated equivalents that are avail- able may not have been through the peer review process. We have explored this issue by discussing grammatically and lexicologically correct French, German, Icelandic, Indonesian, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Japanese versions for terms involved in communicating effu- sive eruption intensity.220 7 - PublicationOpen AccessCloud Photogrammetry from Space(2015)
; ; ; ; ; ;Zaksek, K.; University of Hamburg, CEN, Institute of Geophysics, Bundesstr. 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany ;Gerst, A.; ESA, European Astronaut Centre, Linder Höhe, 51147 Köln, Germany ;von der Lieth, J.; University of Hamburg, CEN, Institute of Geophysics, Bundesstr. 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany ;Ganci, G.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Catania, Catania, Italia ;Hort, M.; University of Hamburg, CEN, Institute of Geophysics, Bundesstr. 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany; ; ; ; The most commonly used method for satellite cloud top height (CTH) compares brightness temperature of the cloud with the atmospheric temperature profile. Because of the uncertainties of this method, we propose a photogrammetric approach. As clouds can move with high velocities, even instruments with multiple cameras are not appropriate for accurate CTH estimation. Here we present two solutions. The first is based on the parallax between data retrieved from geostationary (SEVIRI, HRV band; 1000 m spatial resolution) and polar orbiting satellites (MODIS, band 1; 250 m spatial resolution). The procedure works well if the data from both satellites are retrieved nearly simultaneously. However, MODIS does not retrieve the data at exactly the same time as SEVIRI. To compensate for advection in the atmosphere we use two sequential SEVIRI images (one before and one after the MODIS retrieval) and interpolate the cloud position from SEVIRI data to the time of MODIS retrieval. CTH is then estimated by intersection of corresponding lines-of-view from MODIS and interpolated SEVIRI data. The second method is based on NASA program Crew Earth observations from the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS has a lower orbit than most operational satellites, resulting in a shorter minimal time between two images, which is needed to produce a suitable parallax. In addition, images made by the ISS crew are taken by a full frame sensor and not a push broom scanner that most operational satellites use. Such data make it possible to observe also short time evolution of clouds.305 224 - PublicationRestrictedMeMoVolc report on classification and dynamics of volcanic explosive eruptions(2016-10-28)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Bonadonna, C. ;Cioni, R. ;Costa, A.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italia ;Druitt, T. ;Phillips, J. ;Pioli, L. ;Andronico, D.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Catania, Catania, Italia ;Harris, A. ;Scollo, S.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Catania, Catania, Italia ;Bachmann, O. ;Bagheri, G. ;Biass, S. ;Brogi ;Cashman, K. ;Dominguez, L ;Dürig, T. ;Galland, O. ;Giordano, G. ;Gudmundsson, M. ;Hort, M. ;Höskuldsson, A. ;Houghton, B. ;Komorowski, J. C. ;Küppers, U. ;Lacanna, G. ;Le Pennec, J. L. ;Macedonio, G.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione OV, Napoli, Italia ;Manga, M. ;Manzella, I. ;de’ Michieli Vitturi, M. ;Neri, A. ;Pistolesi, M. ;Polacci, M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Pisa, Pisa, Italia ;Ripepe, M. ;Rossi, E. ;Scheu, B. ;Sulpizio, R. ;Tripoli, B. ;Valade, S. ;Valentine, G. ;Vidal, C. ;Wallenstein, N. ; ;; ; ; ;; ;; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Classifications of volcanic eruptions were first introduced in the early twentieth century mostly based on qualitative observations of eruptive activity, and over time, they have gradually been developed to incorporate more quantitative descriptions of the eruptive products from both deposits and observations of active volcanoes. Progress in physical volcanology, and increased capability in monitoring, measuring and modelling of explosive eruptions, has highlighted shortcomings in the way we classify eruptions and triggered a debate around the need for eruption classification and the advantages and disadvantages of existing classification schemes. Here, we (i) review and assess existing classification schemes, focussing on subaerial eruptions; (ii) summarize the fundamental processes that drive and parameters that characterize explosive volcanism; (iii) identify and prioritize the main research that will improve the understanding, characterization and classification of volcanic eruptions and (iv) provide a roadmap for producing a rational and comprehensive classification scheme. In particular, classification schemes need to be objective-driven and simple enough to permit scientific exchange and promote transfer of knowledge beyond the scientific community. Schemes should be comprehensive and encompass a variety of products, eruptive styles and processes, including for example, lava flows, pyroclastic density currents, gas emissions and cinder cone or caldera formation. Open questions, processes and parameters that need to be addressed and better characterized in order to develop more comprehensive classification schemes and to advance our understanding of volcanic eruptions include conduit processes and dynamics, abrupt transitions in eruption regime, unsteadiness, eruption energy and energy balance.376 12