Latest News

Volcanic Activity Report

Random Picture


The state-of-the-art in eruption forecasting improves each year. But, at the same time, public expectations rise that volcanologists can give precise warnings, neither too early nor too late, and neither overstated nor understated. Much of the societal relevance and funding of volcanology depend on accurate and precise forecasts, so we must ask ourselves, "In addition to current work, what else might we do to improve the accuracy and precision of forecasts?"

Historically, eruption forecasting has relied on repetition of patterns in seismicity, ground deformation, and gas emission before eruptions at the particular volcano of concern. Pattern recognition works well at volcanoes that erupt frequently and with roughly the same precursors to each eruption; it fails where eruptions are infrequent, where the character of unrest changes, or where the same unrest can lead to eruption or not. During the early stages of unrest, patterns are not yet well developed, the outcome of the unrest is not determined, and small differences in rate of magma supply, rate of degassing, magma viscosity, and other parameters can spell the difference between eruption or not, or between different timing, style, or magnitude of eruption.

Better forecasts require that we understand these processes, conditions, and controls, i.e., how the volcano works. All volcanologists know what their own specialized data imply about subvolcanic conditions and processes. Observatory teams consider all lines of current data (e.g., seismic, geodetic, and gas data together), and the constraints that each line of data imposes on interpretations of the next. Process-oriented working hypotheses guide collection of new monitoring data, helping to focus limited equipment and time on the most promising parameters.

In-depth studies of the past and present of a restless volcano become the main basis for forecasts of its future. This is as it should be. Yet, the focus inward on the specific volcano risks loss of some valuable context and lessons that can be gleaned only from study of a much larger sample of volcanoes and unrest. The analogy in medicine is that doctors must rely in the first instance on a patient's own history and symptoms to diagnose an illness, but their job is made easier by the work of epidemiologists who have studied the occurrence of these same symptoms in large populations. The larger data set may show some variability in the symptoms of a single illness, or several illnesses that have one or more symptoms in common. Also, correlations between the illness, its symptoms, and background information such as genetic or environmental factors may help greatly in efforts to understand the disease process and controls on that process.

Epidemiologists pioneered the use of large digital data sets to find sometimes subtle relationships between parameters in complex systems. Now, large databases are central driving forces in a number of sciences, as well as in business. Within the geosciences, seismology and meteorology led the way but nearly every geoscience is following suit. This note reports on a recent workshop that begins development, by the World Organization of Volcano Observatories, of a modern database of worldwide volcanic unrest.

Current state of the data.

Over the past century and especially over recent decades, volcanologists collected a tantalizing volume of data on potential and confirmed eruption precursors. Most current data are recorded and stored digitally, but in various formats. Older data are in hard copy tables, graphics, and pen traces.

All volcano observatories prepare time-series and, as appropriate, spatial distributions of seismic, geodetic, gas, and other data. But few can plot all parameters together vs. time, or together in common x-y-z geographic coordinates. Even fewer observatories have linked their data sets for broader access and comparison. As a result, it is currently impossible for researchers and for those responding to volcanic crises to search for all close matches to some features of unrest in question, or to use modern data mining techniques to find patterns that we might previously have missed.

Previous compilations of data on volcanic unrest.

The Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program has for years built and maintained an up-to-date, reliable, searchable database of historical eruptions (Simkin and Siebert, 1994; It contains almost no data about eruption precursors, or false alarms, but Smithsonian scientists are keen to see those data added, or linked, to their data on eruptions.

We are aware of only two global compilations of non-eruptive unrest. One, in book rather than digital form, reviews historical unrest at large calderas of the world up to the mid 1980's (Newhall and Dzurisin, 1988). All available sources were used, resulting in some inhomogeneity of the data. A small searchable "index" database shows the occurrence or nonoccurrence of various types of unrest during each episode of unrest. More importantly, this compilation shows graphically the spatial and temporal patterns of unrest.

The other global compilation, in hard copy and digital form, reviews seismic swarms during the period 1979-89 (Benoit and McNutt (1996). This Global Volcanic Earthquake Swarm Database (GVESD), culled from the Bulletin of Volcanic Eruptions (Volcanological Society of Japan), contains summary information about seismic swarms such as starting date, duration, maximum magnitude, and type(s) of earthquakes, and remarks. It does not include a catalog of individual seismic events. GVESD data are available on line at A search utility is pending.

The WOVOdat concept. To enable searches, comparisons, and other analyses of unrest at many volcanoes, we need detailed catalogs of seismic events, time-stamped vectors of ground deformation, time-stamped fluxes of various gases, and similarly detailed data on other changes. All data must be translated into standardized units and formats and brought together in a unified, digital database. In recognition of the enormous intellectual and practical potential value of such a database, the World Organization of Volcano Observatories (WOVO) has decided to create WOVOdat, a fully searchable database of all aspects of volcanic unrest, accessible via the Web. So that the outcomes of unrest are also detailed, WOVOdat will be linked with the Smithsonian's database of historical eruptions.

Only a few years ago, WOVOdat might have been hopelessly ambitious and might have stretched the resources and the will of contributing observatories. Today, neither hardware nor software is a limiting factor, and the value of data sharing has been amply demonstrated by projects in the seismological, genomics, and many other science communities, and embraced by funding agencies such as NSF, NASA, and NIH. A recent review of the US Geological Survey's Volcano Hazards Program (Committee on the Review …, 2000) strongly recommended that the USGS bring its volcano data into a more accessible database. (That review also recommended that data be made available in real-time, which WOVOdat does not seek). Some wills may still be stretched and some culture change may be implied, but most WOVO observatories have responded enthusiastically. Now, the principal requirement is that each observatory and a WOVO working group devote time, still a small fraction of that spent gathering new data, to bring data from their observatories into WOVOdat.

First WOVOdat planning workshop. 40 participants from 18 countries and 17 WOVO observatories, plus the Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program, met after the 2000 IAVCEI General Assembly in Bali, July 23-24. A list of participants is included at the end of this note. Goals of the workshop were

  • to review the rationale and uses for a larger, unified WOVOdat
  • to review existing, related, or smaller databases of volcanic unrest
  • to decide parameters and general structure of WOVOdat
  • to choose formats for data entry so that contributors can begin the large job of data compilation
  • to map out further steps, timetable, and responsibilities for the project.

The agenda followed these goals. Ade Djumarma, Director of the Volcanological Survey of Indonesia, welcomed participants and offered his perspectives on how a database of volcanic unrest could help VSI in its tasks. The author outlined his vision of a Web-based WOVOdat and how it can be used both for volcanic crises and research on volcanic processes. Lee Siebert and colleagues of the Smithsonian Institution described their database of historical eruptions; Steve McNutt described John Benoit's and his development of a database of 10 years of volcanic earthquake swarms; Warner Marzocchi of Observatorio Vesuviano gave a forward-looking view of how advances in pattern recognition might be well suited to the diverse content of WOVOdat. Then, most countries offered brief summaries of their monitoring and particularly of their internal databases, most of which are not linked across disciplines or between observatories. We closed Day 1 with a review of the proposed content of WOVOdat (parameters, levels of detail).

On the morning of Day 2, participants broke into four working groups: Geological background, Volcanic Seismicity, Ground Deformation, and Volcanic Gases and Thermal Waters. Each working group considered parameters for their own specialization, and, especially, how best to represent data quality for each parameter.
During the final afternoon, ignoring (well, postponing) the siren call of Bali beaches, we discussed strategies for data entry and retrieval, lessons learned by IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology), and potentially sensitive issues of proprietary vs. public data. We closed by discussing next steps, including a pilot project described below.

Principal issues and decisions
Participants were cautiously enthusiastic, realizing that the job ahead is large and that some matters had to be defined more clearly before they could begin work on WOVOdat. Issues that commanded special attention were:

What is the right balance between enough detail that the database will be useful yet not so much detail that the task will discourage contributors?

A draft list of parameters (available to readers upon request) had been circulated prior to the meeting. For each broad type of unrest (seismicity, ground deformation, other geophysical changes, gas emission, thermal change, and changes in concurrent eruptions), the draft recommended catalog-style data, i.e., time, location, spectral character or composition if applicable, and sense and magnitude of change. Data on individual events, e.g., individual earthquakes, periods of deformation, or periods of gas emission, could be combined in time series, spatial distributions, and other graphical presentations. Raw data such as earthquake arrival times or amplitudes at individual seismic stations, station corrections, or unreduced geodetic and gas data, would not be included. When raw data are needed, they can be obtained from the sources for the reduced, catalog data.

Specialist groups considered parameters that were recommended in the draft and, in general, did not suggest changes. This was undoubtedly influenced by the short time available for discussion, so some changes may yet occur.


Should data be entered only for episodes of unrest, or also for baselines during quiet ("boring") periods?

Participants recognized the value of baselines, but also the large extra effort to enter data from much longer periods of quiet than of unrest. As a compromise, a pilot project described below will include one episode of unrest and one period of representative "quiet." Then, future data entry might focus on episodes of unrest.


How best to show uncertainties and data quality?

The various working groups approached this problem in several different ways. The volcanic seismicity working group noted existing methods for portraying uncertainty in earthquake locations, e.g., error ellipses. Discussion then moved on to errors that are not so easily quantified, such as the effects of wind noise on precision of picks of arrival times, and quantification of error in composite measures of seismicity like Realtime Seismic Amplitude Measurement (RSAM). The group also strongly recommended more standardization of volcano seismometers, including placement of at least one broadband instrument per volcano at a distance of about 3 km from the vent. Such standardization of instruments and instrument placement will make comparisons of data from different volcanoes simpler.

The volcanic geodesy working group offered definitions of A, B, and C quality data for tilt, EDM, theodolite, and GPS data. These suggestions had the virtue of simplicity, but may in some instances be too simple. Also, suggestions are still needed on estimation and representation of error for INSAR interferograms. We will seek additional input, especially with the UNAVCO Volcanic Geodesy group and other volcano geodesists who could not attend the Bali meeting.

The working group for fumarolic and thermal water data emphasized documentation of the collection and analytical methods. Users could judge the quality of samples on the basis of how carefully those samples were chosen and what safeguards were taken to prevent contamination or other artifacts. Details of filtration and dilution would be included in the latter. Analytical error can be estimated from repeat analysis of standards and samples of the current batch, or from previous estimation of the precision of that instrument and method. Estimation of error in plume measurements must also include error of windspeed and other meteorological factors.


What incentives can be offered for observatories to contribute actively to WOVOdat?

The single biggest incentive to contribute will be if observatories see that their own capabilities will advance faster if data are translated into standard formats and merged with similar data from other volcanoes. Certainly, seismologists, geneticists, particle physicists, and scientists from many other fields are making major advances as their cultures shift to wide data sharing. A second incentive will be that when some observatories lead by example, others follow. A third incentive is that a WOVOdat consortium can develop tools for data entry and archiving to make the job of each individual observatory easier.

Funding and access can be used as incentives, too. Some scientific consortia and major funding sources (e.g., NSF, NASA) require data sharing as a condition for funding, or for access to the larger pool of data or to a pool of instruments. USGS volcano observatories are under increasing pressure to make their data publicly available. However, because volcano observatories obtain their funding from many funding sources, and are mostly self-sufficient in terms of equipment and data, restriction of funding and access may be less effective for WOVOdat than the incentive of a better scientific product. If money and access are to be used as incentives, we judge that they will be more effective as "carrots" than as "sticks."

Fortunately, most countries in the workshop were keen to contribute and seek little or no added incentive. The greatest reluctance came, perhaps understandably, from the countries with the greatest volumes of data and thus the largest task ahead, but even these countries are willing in principle to participate.


Should there be a grace period during which observatories work on their own data before contributing them to WOVOdat, and/or a period of embargo during which data are contributed but not publicly available. If yes, how long should those periods be?

Workshop participants supported a roughly 2 year "grace period" from the time of unrest (or from the end of an extended period of unrest) to the time when data should be contributed to WOVOdat. This 2 year period would in most instances allow time for the observatory scientists to analyze their data and publish. It would also remove one worry of some observatories, that early or realtime release of data would complicate their job in managing volcanic emergencies. WOVOdat is fundamentally an historical database that will retain most of its utility even if a 2 year grace period is accepted. When important new patterns of unrest arise, we hope that the observatory scientists will make those data available early, at least for collaboration with other WOVOdat contributors.


What reasonably small-scale pilot project or trial could be used to test data entry and data retrieval mechanisms, and to "prove" the concept?

Workshop leaders agreed to select parameter lists, conventions, and formats that require the least possible reformatting from existing data, yet which satisfy the needs of the new database. A data entry shell will then be prepared, using some user-friendly public-domain software such as MYSQL that IRIS uses in its Portable Data Collection Toolkit. We invite interest from those who might help us develop a similar data collection toolkit for WOVOdat.

The suggestion was made and accepted that, as soon as the data collection toolkit is ready, each contributing country would format and contribute data from at least one episode of unrest and at least one (month-long?) period of quiet at at least one of their volcanoes. The timetable for this will depend on how quickly the data collection toolkit can be developed; our target is to have the toolkit within 6 months to one year, and to have contributions to the trial be ready by the time of the May 2002 centennial of the Mt. Pelée eruption.


Once constructed, how can the database be maintained?

WOVOdat should be a dynamic database that grows with the rapidly increasing volume and quality of volcano monitoring data. A small permanent staff will be required, supplemented perhaps by visitors from the various WOVO observatories. Given the early stage of WOVOdat discussions and the fact that internet connections now make physical location of a staff and server less important than they once were, we did not attempt to decide exactly who will maintain the database or where it will reside. One attractive possibility is with the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program, given its existing database of historical eruptions and existing network of correspondents about current volcanic activity. However, that program would need added resources before it would consider taking on this new responsibility. Close links with IRIS are another possibility. The funding sources will depend in part on the host country and institution.


Next steps

First, we invite comment and participation from the broader volcanological and geoscientific communities. Many of you have experience that was not represented in our workshop in Bali. Please send comments and expressions of interest to the WOVOdat steering group (

A small group will develop a data collection toolkit as described above, to standardize parameters, conventions and terminology, formats, and units. As much as possible, we will use existing formats or neutral formats into which common formats can be easily translated. Most of this effort will start in Seattle (with USGS, IRIS, Univ. of Washington, and other interested scientists), with remote participation by Smithsonian and other interested scientists.

Then, we will ask for volunteers from each volcanic country (from one or more WOVO observatories per country) to contribute data from at least one episode each of unrest and quiet. Those who wish to volunteer should please contact the scientist(s) who represented your country in our Bali workshop, or contact the WOVOdat steering committee.

Eventually, we will seek a much broader pool of volunteers, too, to contribute data from all potential sources and episodes of unrest. Recent, digital data will need some reformatting and documentation; older data that exist only in hard copy will need digitizing (where numeric) and translations (where anecdotal and not presently in English).

How soon can WOVOdat grow large enough that it will be useful during volcanic crises and for research? Much will depend on commitments of funding and time from contributing countries and from other interested parties. We aim to open it to contributors by 2008 (or earlier, for reference during crises), and to open it to all scientists by 2010.

References cited:

Benoit J and McNutt S, 1996, The Global Volcanic Earthquake Swarm Database
1979-1989. USGS Open-File Report 96-69 and

Committee on the Review of the USGS Volcano Hazards Program (J. Fink, chair), 2000, Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Volcano Hazards Program. Natl Academy Press, Wash. DC, 138 p.

Newhall CG, Dzurisin D (1988) Historical unrest at large calderas of the world. US Geol Surv Bull 1855, 1108 p

Simkin T, Siebert L (1994) Volcanoes of the World (2nd ed) Geoscience Press, Tucson 349 p.








Ade Djumarma



Rudi Hadisantono



Mas Atje Purbawinata



Yoshiaki Ida

University of Tokyo


Jean Louis Cheminee



Francois Beauducel



Bradley Scott


New Zealand

Wilfried Strauch



Ima Itikarai

Rabaul Volcano Observatory

Papua New Guinea

Mark Stasiuk

Geological Survey of Canada


Ernesto Corpuz



T. Frank Yang

National Taiwan University


Bernardo Pulgarin



Tatiana Pinegina



Juan Jose Ramirez

Univ. of Colima


Vyacheslav Zobin

Univ. of Colima


Gabriel Reyes

Univ of Colima


Carlos Navarro

Univ. de Colima


Mauricio Bretón

Univ. de Colima


Juan Carlos Gavilanes

Univ. de Colima


Eduardo Malavassi


Costa Rica

María Martínez


Costa Rica

Luis Lara



Hugo Moreno



Marino Martini (day 1)

Univ. of Florence

Italy (Gas)

Warner Marzocchi

Osservatorio Vesuviano


John Shepherd

Seismic Research Unit


David Rothery (day 2)

Open University


Tom Simkin

Smithsonian Institution


Lee Siebert

Smithsonian Institution


Ed Venzke

Smithsonian Institution


Paul Kimberly

Smithsonian Institution


Jim Luhr

Smithsonian Institution


Joop Varekamp

Wesleyan University

USA (Lakes)

Tim Ahern



Steve McNutt

Univ of Alaska


Elisa Koenig

Arizona State Univ.


Heidi Guetschow

Univ. of Washington


Roz Helz



Chris Newhall






 The second WOVOdat workshop had three principal aims:


  • To review existing volcano database development projects, to determine whether any would suffice for the WOVOdat design or, if not, to explore possible sharing of database design elements. 
  • To engage additional observatory scientists who were unable to attend the first workshop in Indonesia.
  • To revisit preliminary recommendations of the first workshop, for confirmation or revision. 


Each of the formal presentations described an existing database or data management scheme.  Steve McNutt described pioneering compilations of volcanic earthquake swarms and tremor.  From Europe, Radu Gogu and Florian Schwandner described Geowarn; Pierre Briole described data management of the Observatoires Volcanologiques, IPG Paris and also of the European Mobile Volcano Surveillance for Early Warning (EMEWS) project; Marcello Martini described data management at INGV’s Osservatorio Vesuviano (see also, data management at INGV Catania); and Juergen Neuberg described the goals and data management of MULTIMO (Multidisciplinary Monitoring, Modelling, and Forecasting of Volcanic Hazards).    Moving west across the Atlantic, Stephan Husen described data management at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory; Dan and Peter Cervelli showed the VALVE (Volcano Analysis and Visualization Environment) system from the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory; Maurizio Battaglia showed previews of his (now published) CD with

Long Valley data; Tom Murray described data management at the Alaskan Volcano Observatory, and Steve Malone and Steve Schilling described data management at the Cascades Volcano Observatory.  Chuck Meertens described the UNAVCO archive for GPS data, including data from 20 volcanoes worldwide.  Yoshiaki Ida briefly described volcano data management in Japan, which is handled at individual volcano observatories and at the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA).  JMA will be the primary link between Japanese volcano observatories and WOVOdat.  Finally, Paul Kimberly described the Smithsonian’s Global Volcanism Program and, specifically, their pioneering Volcano Reference File to which WOVOdat will be closely linked.  Thanks very much to these presenters and to the rest of the 38 participants for their helpful comments during plenary and breakout discussions.  A special thanks to those who traveled from overseas to share their work.


Following these presentations, we split into three Working Groups:

I.          Parameters, Data quality, and Metadata

II.               Schema -- relationships between data types

III.             Data access  (who, when, how)


The main recommendations from each Working Group are as follow:


I.                 Parameters, Data Quality, and Metadata:

·       All data will be time-stamped and geo-referenced.

·       In general, the appropriate level of data for WOVOdat is the most basic (i.e., least processed) data that are needed for comparative studies and pattern recognition.  This level and specific parameter recommendations may be found in the draft list of WOVOdat parameters.   Rates and changes of rates can be calculated rather than entered separately.   Raw data can be sought directly from observatories.

·       Similarly, the appropriate level of metadata for WOVOdat is the minimum needed by users for comparative studies.  Additional details such as calibrated instrument responses can be obtained from observatories if needed.

·       Some "knowledge products" can also be included, especially those that would be awkward for users to recalculate, e.g., focal plane solutions.   One section of WOVOdat will be explicitly interpretive, noting published interpretations of unrest in keywords for easy retrieval, without any implied warranty that the interpretations are correct.  This will simply record “who thought what, and when.”  

·       Data quality should be expressed whenever possible in terms of precision  (g).  In this way, value judgments about the usefulness of the data are minimized and comparability is maximized. 

·       Data with low precision will be retained but flagged with the appropriate caution and a link to pertinent metadata.   The reason for including data of less-than-current standards is that we want to capture lessons from early monitoring efforts, to get a sense of variability in patterns of unrest from one episode to the next or from one volcano to the next.   There are many more episodes of unrest and eruption in a century than in just a few years, and for macro-scale changes sample size is more important than data precision.

·       The primary responsibility for data quality assessment will remain with the contributing observatory.   Users can include data quality in their search parameters, as appropriate to the problem they are studying.


II.  Database Schema

·       There was a strong consensus that, for recent and future data, we should "undefine unrest,” i.e., to include continuous data without specifying or segregating that judged to be from “unrest.”  This avoids arbitrary or inconsistent judgments about what constitutes unrest and will also be more efficient for many observatories. 

·       At the same time, we recognized that in many instances of older unrest, only short periods of data have been preserved.    Also, even if continuous data from the pre-digital age were available, the time investment to enter those data manually for long periods of quiet would not be worth the effort. 

·       WOVOdat will offer a copy of its database structure to every observatory in open source software.  This may solve some of the data management needs of smaller observatories and will certainly facilitate local uploading of data for WOVOdat.

·       WOVOdat will use numeric primary keys in each table to facilitate linking between tables and linking with other databases.


3. Access Working Group:

·       Free public access to observatory data is a sensitive matter that we discussed at length.   All participants favor rapid public release of interpreted data (warnings and updates), most favor public release of minimally processed (publishable) data after a suitable grace period, and few favor open public release of raw data.   On the matter of raw data, most participants recommended that such data be shared on a person-to-person collegial basis, rather than through WOVOdat, and this is entirely consistent with the recommendation of the parameters working group that WOVOdat not store raw data except a few types that can be used directly for comparisons between volcanoes or unrest. 

·       One primary reason for a grace period before release of minimally processed data is to minimize public and official confusion during volcanic crises.  Volcanologists have an unenviable record of public disagreements that ought to have been worked out behind the closed doors of scientific discussions.  Such disagreements confuse officials and the public and result in credibility loss for all scientists.  The other primary reason for a grace period is to give those scientists who collected the data a fair first chance to interpret and publish the data.   Participants were in consensus that the appropriate length of a grace period is 2 years. 

·       If it is more efficient for an observatory to send data to WOVOdat soon after the data are gathered, that observatory may request WOVOdat to filter (not deliver) those data for up to 2 years.   Each observatory, not WOVOdat, will choose an appropriate grace period or serving filter for its own data not to exceed 2 years.  Some observatories already make data available in near-real-time because the risk of data rip-off has proved less than the value of transparency and enhanced collaboration.  We expect more observatories to move in this direction but accept that local factors must dictate their pace.    

·       WOVOdat will not have different levels of access for contributors and outside users, nor will there be passwords for read-only, search, or download access.  The only use of passwords will be for data maintenance. 

·       Each observatory will tag data with guidance on how to cite the source, and the quality and idiosyncrasies of its data. 

·       Researchers who will publish papers will be encouraged to contact original sources to avoid duplication and to build collaboration.  We encourage inclusion of local co-authors in publications.


We discussed the pros and cons of centralized vs. distributed models for WOVOdat.   The centralized model is easier and faster to query; distributed models might be easier and retain more control for observatories but they are harder to organize and query and require fast internet connections.  We decided to proceed with a centralized system and then reconsider a distributed system in the future when data storage and formats become more standard and internet connections are faster. 


We also discussed potential linkages to other major geoscience databases, including those of the Smithsonian, IRIS, UNAVCO, Earthscope, NEPTUNE, and GEON.  Linkages could include sharing of selected data and of utilities for data I/O and visualization and, potentially, co-hosting.  We do not wish to reinvent any wheels, have had initial discussions with most of these groups, and are keen to talk further with potential "dance partners!" 


The project has been several years in design and gestation and is moving towards the pilot build phase and testing. Then, the large tasks of populating and maintaining the database will begin.  The job ahead is large and could make difficult demands on already-busy observatory staff.   To minimize these demands, we plan that the WOVOdat project will have staff that, upon request, can travel to observatories and play an active role in data reformatting and transfer to WOVOdat.  We also plan to offer timesaving data management solutions that will serve individual observatories' own data management needs as well as serve the large expected WOVOdat user community. 


Workshop Organizers: 

Dina Venezky, Menlo Park

Chris Newhall, Seattle


Participants in 2nd WOVOdat Workshop, Menlo Park, December 11-13, 2002


Maurizio Battaglia (LVO)                                           USA/Italy

Pierre Briole, IPG Paris                                              France

Peter Cervelli, HVO                                                   USA

Dan Cervelli, HVO/UW                                              USA   

Bob Christiansen, YVO                                               USA

Radu Gogu, Geowarn, Zurich                                      Switzerland

John Ewert, USGS/VDAP                                           USA

Stefano Gresta, Univ. of Catania                                 Italy

Marianne Guffanti, USGS/Reston                               USA

Roz Helz, USGS Reston – 1st day only                       USA

Dave Hill, LVO                                                           USA

Stephan Husen, YVO                                                   USA

Yoshiaki Ida, Himeji Tech                                          Japan

Malcolm Johnston, USGS Menlo                                USA

Paul Kimberly, Smithsonian                                        USA

Jake Lowenstern, YVO                                               USA                           

Steve Malone, UW                                                      USA

Marcello Martini, INGV                                             Italy

Warner Marzocchi, INGV                                           Italy

Steve McNutt, AVO                                                    USA

Chuck Meertens, UNAVCO                                        USA

Tom Murray, AVO                                                      USA

Juergen Neuberg, MULTIMO – 1st day only               UK

Chris Newhall, CVO @ UW                                       USA

John Pallister, USGS/VHP                                          USA

Jim Quick                                                                    USA               

Laura Sandri, Univ Bologna                                        Italy

Steve Schilling, CVO                                                  USA

Florian Schwandner, Geowarn                                   Switzerland

Willie Scott, CVO                                                       USA

Paul Segall, Stanford                                                   USA

Tom Simkin, Smithsonian (1st day only)                     USA

Don Swanson, USGS/HVO                                         USA

Glenn Thompson, MVO (1st day only)                        UK

Dina Venezky, WOVOdat/USGS                                 USA

Randy White, USGS/Menlo Park                                USA

Meredith Williams, Stanford                                       USA

Jeff Wynn, USGS/VHP                                                USA


Back to WOVOdat Page

Back to WOVO Home Page