Forward Looking Infrared Radiometer (FLIR) cameras offer a unique view of explosive volcanism by providing an image of calibrated temperatures. In this study, 344 eruptive events at Stromboli volcano, Italy, were imaged in 2001-2004 with a FLIR camera operating at up to 30 Hz. The FLIR was effective at revealing both ash plumes and coarse ballistic scoria, and a wide range of eruption styles was recorded. Eruptions at Stromboli can generally be classified into two groups: Type 1 eruptions, which are dominated by coarse ballistic particles, and Type 2 eruptions, which consist of an optically-thick, ash-rich plume, with (Type 2a) or without (Type 2b) large numbers of ballistic particles. Furthermore, Type 2a plumes exhibited gas thrust velocities (>15 m s −1 ) while Type 2b plumes were limited to buoyant velocities (<15 m s −1 ) above the crater rim. A given vent would normally maintain a particular gross eruption style (Type 1 vs. 2) for days to weeks, indicating stability of the uppermost conduit on these timescales. Velocities at the crater rim had a range of 3-101 m s −1 , with an overall mean value of 24 m s −1 . Mean crater rim velocities by eruption style were: Type 1= 34 m s −1 , Type 2a=31 m s −1 , Type 2b=7 m s −1 . Eruption durations had a range of 6-41 s, with a mean of 15 s, similar among eruption styles. The ash in Type 2 eruptions originates from either backfilled material (crater wall slumping or ejecta rollback) or rheological changes in the uppermost magma column. Type 2a and 2b behaviors are shown to be a function of the overpressure of the bursting slug. In general, our imaging data support a broadening of the current paradigm for strombolian behavior, incorporating an uppermost conduit that can be more variable than is commonly considered.

Measurement of effusion rate is a primary objective for studies that model lava flow and magma system dynamics, as well as for monitoring efforts during on-going eruptions. However, its exact definition remains a source of confusion, and problems occur when comparing volume flux values that are averaged over different time periods or spatial scales, or measured using different approaches. Thus our aims are to: (1) define effusion rate terminology; and (2) assess the various measurement methods and their results. We first distinguish between instantaneous effusion rate, and time-averaged discharge rate. Eruption rate is next defined as the total volume of lava emplaced since the beginning of the eruption divided by the time since the eruption began. The ultimate extension of this is mean output rate, this being the final volume of erupted lava divided by total eruption duration. Whether these values are total values, i.e. the flux feeding all flow units across the entire flow field, or local, i.e. the flux feeding a single active unit within a flow field across which many units are active, also needs to be specified. No approach is without its problems, and all can have large error (up to ∼50%). However, good agreement between diverse approaches shows that reliable estimates can be made if each approach is applied carefully and takes into account the caveats we detail here. There are three important factors to consider and state when measuring, giving or using an effusion rate. First, the time-period over which the value was averaged; second, whether the measurement applies to the entire active flow field, or a single lava flow within that field; and third, the measurement technique and its accompanying assumptions.

[1] Effusive activity at Stromboli is uncommon, and the 2002-2003 flank eruption gave us the opportunity to observe and analyze a number of complex volcanic processes. In particular, the use of a handheld thermal camera during the eruption allowed us to monitor the volcano even in difficult weather and operating conditions. Regular helicopter-borne surveys with the thermal camera throughout the eruption have significantly improved (1) mapping of active lava flows; (2) detection of new cracks, landslide scars, and obstructions forming within and on the flanks of active craters; (3) observation of active lava flow field features, such as location of new vents, tube systems, tumuli, and hornitos; (4) identification of active vent migration along the Sciara del Fuoco; (5) monitoring of crater's inner morphology and maximum temperature, revealing magma level changes within the feeding conduit; and (6) detection of lava flow field endogenous growth. Additionally, a new system developed by A. J. L. Harris and others has been applied to our thermal data, allowing daily calculation of effusion rate. These observations give us new insights on the mechanisms controlling the volcanic system.