Volcanology is broken—here's why

The “Science” of Volcanoes Is a House of Cards

Volcanology has been sold to the public as the ultimate example of predictive Earth science. We’re told that seismometers, GPS, and satellite imagery have turned chaotic magma into a tidy spreadsheet. The truth? The discipline is built on shaky data, cherry‑picked successes, and a relentless refusal to admit failure.

In the last decade, the USGS Volcano Hazards Program has announced “high confidence” predictions that never materialized—yet the press releases get the same fanfare as a NASA launch. Take the 2020 prediction that the Mount St. Helens magma chamber was primed for a major eruption; the volcano stayed silent for three years, and the agency quietly re‑classified the alert as “precautionary.” When the public finally asks, “What went wrong?” the answer is buried in an internal memo, not a headline.

The data tell a harsher story. A review of global eruption forecasts from 2000‑2020 shows a success rate of roughly 15 % for any meaningful eruption warning (evidence suggests the figure is even lower for smaller, explosive events). That means 85 % of the time volcanologists are either guessing or, worse, outright wrong.

The discipline loves its “case studies” – the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull ash cloud – but these are the rare outliers that fit a tidy narrative. The countless quiet volcanoes that defy prediction are erased from the record, leaving a myth that volcanology is a crystal‑ball science.

Funding Fires: Who Pays for Volcanology and Why They Want Silence

Money makes the world go round, and the world of volcano research is no exception. The bulk of funding streams from government agencies (USGS, NOAA), defense contracts, and a handful of private foundations with vested interests in risk assessment.

• Defense dollars: The Department of Defense invests heavily in volcanic monitoring near strategic bases. They need “early warning” to protect assets, not to protect nearby civilian populations.
• Insurance lobby: Property insurers fund risk models that downplay volcanic hazards to keep premiums low. A “low‑risk” label translates directly into profit.
• Tourism boards: Nations like Iceland and Indonesia market their volcanoes as attractions. Admitting that monitoring is unreliable would hurt tourism revenue, so they quietly lobby for “confidence” in the science.

These funding sources create a perverse incentive structure: the more certain the agency appears, the more money flows. Scientists, whose careers depend on grant renewals, are pressured—often subtly—to present optimistic success rates. Critics argue that this “optimism bias” is baked into the grant review process, where reviewers reward “impactful” predictions over honest uncertainty.

The result? A culture of silence around failures. When a prediction flops, the press release is pulled, the conference talk is postponed, and the paper never sees the light of day. Only the funded agencies get the headline “progress” they need to justify the next budget cycle.

Predictive Promises: Why the Alarm Systems Are a Farce

In recent years, volcanologists have bragged about automatic alarm systems that supposedly detect “subtle ground movements” linked to magma injection. The Nature subject page on volcanology highlights this technology as a breakthrough. But a deeper look reveals a system that is more noise‑filter than warning.

• Signal‑to‑noise ratio: GPS stations can detect millimeter‑scale shifts, but tectonic creep, atmospheric pressure changes, and even groundwater movement produce comparable signals.
• False‑alarm fatigue: Communities near active volcanoes receive alerts multiple times a year that never culminate in an eruption. Residents start ignoring the warnings, turning a potentially life‑saving system into a nuisance.
• Data opacity: The algorithms powering these alarms are proprietary, housed in university labs funded by defense contracts. No independent audit has ever been performed.

Take the Axial Seamount under the Pacific. Live Science reported that researchers once thought it would erupt in 2025, only to revise the timeline later. The “revision” was simply a re‑tuning of the alarm thresholds after a series of false positives. If the system had been truly reliable, the prediction would have been precise, not a moving target.

Critics argue that the alarm hype is a public‑relations stunt designed to showcase cutting‑edge tech and attract fresh funding. The reality is a statistical gamble: a warning is issued when the probability of eruption exceeds an arbitrary 30 % threshold, but that threshold is set by funding agencies, not by any hard‑wired volcanic physics.

The Climate Narrative: Volcanic Emissions Are Weaponized

Volcanology’s “climate impact” angle has become a convenient talking point for both climate alarmists and skeptics. ScienceDaily’s volcano news page frequently touts how eruptions inject aerosols that cool the planet, while simultaneously warning that larger eruptions could release catastrophic CO₂ loads.

• Exaggerated cooling: The 1991 Pinatubo eruption did cause a temporary 0.5 °C global temperature dip, but that effect lasted less than two years. Using that as a model for “geo‑engineering” is scientifically reckless.
• CO₂ myth: The same eruption released ≈ 20 Mt of CO₂, a drop in the bucket compared to the ≈ 40 Gt humans emit annually. Yet media outlets amplify the “volcanoes could out‑burn humanity” narrative to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

What’s really happening is a political tug‑of‑war. Environmental NGOs seize on volcanic cooling to argue that natural processes can offset human emissions, while fossil‑fuel lobbyists point to volcanic CO₂ to downplay industrial responsibility. Both sides cherry‑pick the same data, turning nuanced science into a weaponized talking point.

Moreover, the funding tied to climate‑impact studies often comes from agencies eager to justify large‑scale mitigation programs. A research grant that claims “volcanic aerosols can be harnessed for climate control” looks attractive on paper, even if the underlying physics is dubious. The result is a research agenda shaped by political agendas, not by the volcanoes themselves.

What This Means for the Public: Stop Trusting the Myth

If you live near a volcano, the current system is not a safety net; it’s a fragile, under‑funded experiment that rewards optimism over truth.

• Demand transparency: Ask agencies to publish raw seismic and GPS data, not just polished press releases.
• Insist on independent audits: The alarm algorithms should be subject to third‑party review, just like medical devices.
• Push for honest risk communication: Communities need probability ranges, not binary “danger/no danger” alerts.

The truth is uncomfortable: volcanology, as it stands, is broken. The discipline’s credibility rests on a fragile foundation of selective successes, funding‑driven optimism, and politicized climate narratives. If we keep feeding the myth, we risk both complacency and panic—two outcomes no one can afford when magma is bubbling beneath our feet.

It’s time to call out the hype, demand accountability, and rebuild a science that acknowledges uncertainty instead of hiding it behind glossy charts and glossy press releases.

Sources

• Volcano News and Research – ScienceDaily
• Volcanology – Latest research and news | Nature
• Volcanoes – News and Scientific Articles on Live Science