In the Pacific Northwest, a surge of seismic activity has pushed one underwater volcano into what researchers describe as a very high likelihood of eruption, with some models putting the odds near 95 percent in the short term. That kind of number sounds apocalyptic, especially when paired with eye‑catching claims of 10,000 quakes in a day, but the real story is more nuanced and rooted in years of close monitoring beneath the waves.
I want to unpack what scientists actually know about this restless seafloor volcano, how its behavior compares with the quiet steadiness of nearby giants like Mount Rainier, and why viral headlines about imminent catastrophe often miss the most important context about risk, readiness, and what a modern eruption would really mean for people on shore.
Axial Seamount and the science behind a “95%” eruption risk
The volcano at the center of the current concern is Axial Seamount, a broad shield volcano sitting roughly a mile below the surface off the Pacific Northwest coast. For years, researchers have treated Axial as a natural laboratory, wiring it with instruments that track how the seafloor inflates as magma rises and how swarms of tiny earthquakes cluster along its rift zones. That long record is what allows some teams to talk about a roughly 95 percent chance of eruption in a given window, because they can compare today’s patterns to previous cycles that ended with lava on the seafloor.
Earlier this year, scientists described Axial Seamount as an “unusual” underwater volcano that tends to erupt on a relatively regular schedule and is now showing the same kind of pre‑eruption behavior they saw before past events. Multiple reports noted that Axial Seamount was experiencing between 200 and 1,000 earthquakes per day, a level of activity that would be extraordinary on land but is part of the known pattern for this particular seamount as magma moves and cracks the crust. That context is crucial: a high probability of eruption here reflects a well‑understood cycle, not a sudden surprise that caught scientists off guard.
From hundreds to thousands of quakes: what the numbers really mean
When people hear about 10,000 quakes in a day, it sounds like the ground must be ripping apart. In reality, most of those events are so small that only sensitive instruments can detect them, and they cluster in tight swarms that tell geophysicists where magma is forcing its way through rock. At Axial Seamount, the jump from hundreds of daily quakes into the thousands is a sign that the system is entering a more intense phase of unrest, but it is still consistent with the way this volcano has behaved before previous eruptions rather than a sign of something fundamentally new.
Researchers tracking a mile‑deep volcano off the West Coast reported that more than 2,000 earthquakes had already been recorded during a recent surge, a figure that fits with the idea of swarms building toward an eruption rather than a single catastrophic rupture. That report, dated Aug 18, 2025, emphasized that the volcano sits about a Mile deep off the West Coast, and that More quakes were expected as the system evolved. In that light, a headline‑friendly figure like 10,000 quakes in a day is less a singular shock and more the upper end of a known pattern in a very active, very well‑instrumented volcano.
Why an underwater eruption is not another Mount St. Helens
For coastal communities, the natural comparison point for any talk of a Northwest eruption is Mount St. Helens, whose 1980 blast reshaped both the landscape and the region’s sense of vulnerability. Axial Seamount, however, is a very different kind of threat. Sitting a mile beneath the ocean surface, it tends to produce effusive eruptions that pour lava onto the seafloor rather than explosive events that send ash into the sky. The overlying water column acts as a lid, quenching magma quickly and absorbing much of the energy that would otherwise drive towering plumes.
That does not mean an eruption is irrelevant to people on land. A large seafloor event can still disturb the water column, alter hydrothermal systems, and in some scenarios contribute to small tsunamis or changes in local ocean chemistry. But the best available reporting on this unusual underwater volcano stresses that its expected activity in 2025 is part of a recurring pattern that scientists have anticipated for years. In other words, a high probability of eruption here is closer to a forecast of heavy rain in a known storm track than a bolt from the blue.
Mount Rainier: steady instruments, spiking rumors
While Axial Seamount has been quietly building toward its next eruption, a very different story has been playing out on social media around Mount Rainier. Viral posts and sensational headlines have suggested that the iconic stratovolcano south of Seattle is suddenly on the verge of blowing, often citing supposed spikes in seismic activity or misinterpreted graphs. Those claims have spread far faster than any ash cloud, even as the instruments on the mountain tell a much calmer story.
Scientists with regional networks have been explicit that there is no unusual increase in earthquakes at Mount Rainier and no sign that it is about to erupt. A widely shared rumor traced back to a misleading story that framed routine monitoring data as evidence of imminent disaster, prompting volcanologists to step in and correct the record. Their message has been consistent: the mountain is being watched closely, but its current behavior does not match the patterns that would signal a short‑term eruption risk.
How experts dismantled a viral “eruption imminent” narrative
As the Mount Rainier rumor gained traction, local scientists and emergency managers moved quickly to explain what the data actually showed. They pointed out that small earthquakes are a normal part of life for a large, glacier‑covered volcano, and that the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network has long tracked those events without seeing any recent shift that would indicate magma rising toward the surface. In other words, the supposed surge in quakes was a mirage created by misreading graphs and cherry‑picking numbers.
One detailed debunk traced the false alarm to a national headline that mischaracterized routine seismic noise as a dramatic spike, then spread across platforms without basic fact‑checking. That analysis, published on SEATTLE television, underscored that Mount Rainier is not erupting and that the Wednesday coverage that sparked the panic misrepresented the underlying data. Another report, dated Nov 18, 2025, traced the narrative back to the Daily Mail and its framing that suggested “America’s most dangerous volcano” was suddenly waking up, a claim that experts flatly rejected.
What official monitoring says about current Cascade Range risk
Beyond individual rumors, the clearest window into real volcanic risk in the Pacific Northwest comes from the official alert levels maintained for the Cascade Range. Those assessments synthesize data from seismometers, GPS stations, gas sensors, and satellite imagery to assign each volcano a status that can be raised or lowered as conditions change. When that system shows a shift, it is because multiple lines of evidence point in the same direction, not because a single graph went viral.
In its most recent notice for the CASCADE RANGE, the monitoring agency listed a specific identifier, VNUM 47, and noted that the update was issued on Friday, November 21, 2025, at 11:47 a.m. PST (19:47 UTC). That bulletin, which covers the broader RANGE, highlighted that monitoring stations at Mount Rainier were functioning normally and did not indicate any sudden change in behavior. In other words, the official risk picture for the Cascades remains grounded in steady data, not in the fever spikes of online speculation.
Separating place, perception, and preparedness
Part of the confusion around the current wave of volcano headlines comes from the way people blend very different places and hazards into a single mental image. A mile‑deep seamount off the coast, a snow‑covered stratovolcano looming over Tacoma, and a remote peak in the broader Cascades all carry different kinds of risk, yet they are often lumped together as if any mention of quakes or magma at one site means the entire region is on the brink. That is how a real uptick in underwater activity can morph, in the public imagination, into a land‑based eruption that experts say is not actually in the cards right now.
To keep those distinctions clear, it helps to remember that each volcano has its own monitoring footprint and its own history. The underwater site highlighted in one detailed place report is not the same as the peak described in another, even if both sit within the broader tectonic setting of the Pacific Northwest. When I look across the available evidence, I see a region where one underwater volcano is very likely to erupt in a way scientists have anticipated, while the most famous cone on the skyline remains quiet by the standards that matter most to the people who watch it for a living.
More from MorningOverview