Review finds recurring errors in volcano coverage

A review published August 19, 2026 in the Journal of Applied Volcanology organized 18 recurring misconceptions into six themes. The authors drew on media analysis, research and their communication experience, with seven eruption-related case studies. This was a review of misleading claims and their scientific context, rather than a new forecast of an eruption. ^[1]

The USGS’s undated forecasting guide explains the underlying problem. Rising magma can produce earthquakes, deformation, heat and chemical changes, but unrest can subside without an eruption. Precursors do not by themselves establish an eruption’s scale. Steam-driven explosions can offer little warning. A single alarming chart therefore leaves important evidence and uncertainty out. ^[2]

Its separate Yellowstone reference addresses the language of an eruption being overdue. Three large past eruptions provide only two intervals; an average of those intervals does not create a reliable schedule. This is a limit on what the historical sample can support, not a prediction of when Yellowstone will erupt. ^[3]

INGV’s September 14 account highlights another reporting failure: images of Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau had illustrated stories about Italy’s Stromboli. A genuine photograph can still mislead when its location is wrong. Checking the original place and date is part of evaluating a claim’s evidence, not merely an aesthetic choice. ^[4]

About this item: Retrospective report. No first-hand reporting or independent testing is claimed. Corrections policy.