the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Jun 2023
The 2019 Raikoke eruption as a testbed for rapid assessment of volcanic atmospheric impacts by the Volcano Response group
Abstract. The 21st June 2019 Raikoke eruption (48° N,153° E) generated one of the largest amounts of sulfur emission to the stratosphere since the 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption. Satellite measurements indicate a consensus best estimate of 1.5 Tg for the sulfur dioxide (SO2) injected at an altitude of around 14–15 km. The peak northern hemisphere mean 525 nm Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Depth (SAOD) increased to 0.025, a factor of three higher than background levels. The Volcano Response (VolRes) initiative provided a platform for the community to share information about this eruption, which significantly enhanced coordination efforts in the days after the eruption. A multi-platform satellite observation sub-group formed to prepare an initial report to present eruption parameters including SO2 emissions and their vertical distribution for the modelling community. It allowed to make the first estimate of what would be the peak in SAOD one week after the eruption using a simple volcanic aerosol model. In this retrospective analysis, we show that revised volcanic SO2 injection profiles yield a higher peak injection of the SO2 mass. This highlights difficulties in accurately representing the vertical distribution for moderate SO2 explosive eruptions in the lowermost stratosphere due to limited vertical sensitivity of current satellite sensors (+/- 2 km accuracy) and low horizontal resolution of lidar observations. We also show that the SO2 lifetime initially assumed in the simple aerosol model was overestimated by 66 %, pointing to challenges for simple models to capture how the life cycle of volcanic gases and aerosols depends on the SO2 injection magnitude, latitude and height. Using revised injection profile, modelling results indicate a peak northern hemisphere monthly mean SAOD at 525 nm of 0.024, in excellent agreement with observations, associated with a global monthly mean radiative forcing of -0.17 W/m2 resulting in an annual global mean surface temperature anomalies of -0.028 K. Given the relatively small magnitude of the forcing, it is unlikely that the surface response can be dissociated from surface temperature variability.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2088 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2088 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1116', Albert Ansmann, 21 Jul 2023
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1116', Chris Boone, 28 Jul 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-CC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1116', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Aug 2023
Review of “The 2019 Raikoke eruption as a testbed for rapid assessment of volcanic atmospheric impacts by the Volcano Response group” by Vernier et al. for publication in EGUsphere.
The paper presents a sort of process/discussion event of the rapid analysis of the June 2019 Raikoke volcanic eruption through the perspective of the “Volcano Response” group, a grassroots community communicating via an email list and attempting to provide information quickly to the scientific community following volcanic events. Several datasets are synthesized toward providing initial and later, refined estimates of the volcanic plume vertical profile and loading of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and aerosol. Impact of initial and refined inputs for plume altitude and loading of SO2 (and so resulting aerosol) are presented in Figure 7, and the impacts on temperature and radiative forcing are presented Figure 9. Overall it is argued that the Raikoke eruption has small radiative forcing impact and so small impact on surface temperature.
As a process the paper is of sufficient interest to warrant publication after minor revisions. The paper does need a pretty thorough reading for copy editing. I note below a number of places where clarity of the text can be improved and further clarifying information should be provided instead of leaning so heavily on community jargon. Some of the figures are lacking in legends or labeling so as to not be intuitive what is being shown.
4: affiliation #3 arrives after #4 in the ordering. Please revise.
56: “hellmouth,” — add comma
60: “(SVERT),” — add comma
64: “red warnings for aviation” — what does this mean, please explain
67: Figure 1 needs some work to be understandable. There are no axis labels or units on the top panel, and neither does the text or caption explain what “Infrasound Signal” means. Further, eleven explosive episodes are mentioned in the text, but only the first 9 are labeled in the panel. I have no idea how to interpret the bottom panel. Is the blue line the cloud-top temperature and goes with the lefthand axis? What do the orange and grey dots represent? This needs a much clearer legend and further explanatory text in the caption at least.
69: Please explain more clearly what “(1,2,3,7,9 and 10)” refers to. I think these are the explosive events. #10 is not labeled in Figure 1a (although I can count, so I suppose…) but I’m still not sure if it is meant that this group of episodes is “vent outflow” or the other kind.
83: “(SSIRC),” — add comma
89: This is a different URL than in line 104, though they go to the same place. Suggest you state same URL for less confusion. Also, as written here there is an extraneous superscript “2” at the end of the URL that should be removed. And I note the page was initially confusing as it does not appear to show any meaningful content on mobile browser, but does on desktop.
105: I note here that you refer to Table 2 before you ever refer to Table 1 (line 196). Suggest you reorder the tables accordingly.
120: “Precursor satellite,” — add comma
120: “on board” — line 127 writes “onboard” while 140 and 148 both write “on board” as here. Be consistent.
141: “equatorial” — do not capitalize
151: “Cloud layer products,” — add comma
152: CAD “less than -100 or greater than -20” — expand on what this means or otherwise clarify. This is not meaningful to the average reader.
154: “0, 1, 16, and 18 are rejected” — same comment as above, what does this mean?
157 - 171: This is a repeat of the text in 66 - 80 and should be removed.
173: I note here you skip to Section 4 and there is no Section 3. Subsequent numbers follow Section 4.
183: “as will be discussed” — add “be”
185: Suggest start a new paragraph at “Figure 2 shows…”
188: “temporal evolution than the one” — replace “than” with “as”
227: What does “bulk height” mean? Center of mass?
232: “effective heights” — again, what does this mean? Here and previous comment please establish a definition and be consistent so that data are not mis-applied.
256: “eruption, allowing” — add comman
258: I would say “low spatial coverage” is more appropriate than “low horizontal resolution.” It’s a coverage matter rather than a resolution issue.
269: Here and throughout paragraph, since you labeled Figure 5 in parts a, b, c, … suggest you refer explicitly to those panels by letter so it is clear what to look at. Figure 5c I don’t understand what the red line is, and there are no units given for the y-axis (I infer K).
275: “second orbit” — not clear what you mean, as this is the third orbit from left to right. You describe the leftmost (latest) orbit first. Maybe the plume was encountered on “a second orbit”?
281: Suggest start a new paragraph at “We visually inspected…”
290: “aerosol loading,” — add comma
312: “Ghassan Taha” and “Clarissa Lieven”
315: “times, randomly” — add comma
354: You do not appear to refer to or discuss the left hand panel in Figure 9. Omit.
434: “HTHH” is being used, but has not explicitly been connected to the Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’apei eruption and should be noted.
768: In the legend for Figure 1 there are parenthetical notations ([FP], [NT], …) with no explanation. Please either remove or explain.
808: Should be “particulate” instead of “particular”
826: I believe the figure and legend are correct, but caption refers here to the yellow line when the orange line is meant, and vice versa on the following line. Please correct or clarify.
872: Label or add in caption that altitude is in km.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1116-RC1 -
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1116', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Aug 2023
I agree with the comments of the other reviewer overall and have little to add. I highly recommend that the manuscript be professionally copy-edited.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1116-RC2 -
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC2-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1116', Albert Ansmann, 21 Jul 2023
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1116', Chris Boone, 28 Jul 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-CC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1116', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Aug 2023
Review of “The 2019 Raikoke eruption as a testbed for rapid assessment of volcanic atmospheric impacts by the Volcano Response group” by Vernier et al. for publication in EGUsphere.
The paper presents a sort of process/discussion event of the rapid analysis of the June 2019 Raikoke volcanic eruption through the perspective of the “Volcano Response” group, a grassroots community communicating via an email list and attempting to provide information quickly to the scientific community following volcanic events. Several datasets are synthesized toward providing initial and later, refined estimates of the volcanic plume vertical profile and loading of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and aerosol. Impact of initial and refined inputs for plume altitude and loading of SO2 (and so resulting aerosol) are presented in Figure 7, and the impacts on temperature and radiative forcing are presented Figure 9. Overall it is argued that the Raikoke eruption has small radiative forcing impact and so small impact on surface temperature.
As a process the paper is of sufficient interest to warrant publication after minor revisions. The paper does need a pretty thorough reading for copy editing. I note below a number of places where clarity of the text can be improved and further clarifying information should be provided instead of leaning so heavily on community jargon. Some of the figures are lacking in legends or labeling so as to not be intuitive what is being shown.
4: affiliation #3 arrives after #4 in the ordering. Please revise.
56: “hellmouth,” — add comma
60: “(SVERT),” — add comma
64: “red warnings for aviation” — what does this mean, please explain
67: Figure 1 needs some work to be understandable. There are no axis labels or units on the top panel, and neither does the text or caption explain what “Infrasound Signal” means. Further, eleven explosive episodes are mentioned in the text, but only the first 9 are labeled in the panel. I have no idea how to interpret the bottom panel. Is the blue line the cloud-top temperature and goes with the lefthand axis? What do the orange and grey dots represent? This needs a much clearer legend and further explanatory text in the caption at least.
69: Please explain more clearly what “(1,2,3,7,9 and 10)” refers to. I think these are the explosive events. #10 is not labeled in Figure 1a (although I can count, so I suppose…) but I’m still not sure if it is meant that this group of episodes is “vent outflow” or the other kind.
83: “(SSIRC),” — add comma
89: This is a different URL than in line 104, though they go to the same place. Suggest you state same URL for less confusion. Also, as written here there is an extraneous superscript “2” at the end of the URL that should be removed. And I note the page was initially confusing as it does not appear to show any meaningful content on mobile browser, but does on desktop.
105: I note here that you refer to Table 2 before you ever refer to Table 1 (line 196). Suggest you reorder the tables accordingly.
120: “Precursor satellite,” — add comma
120: “on board” — line 127 writes “onboard” while 140 and 148 both write “on board” as here. Be consistent.
141: “equatorial” — do not capitalize
151: “Cloud layer products,” — add comma
152: CAD “less than -100 or greater than -20” — expand on what this means or otherwise clarify. This is not meaningful to the average reader.
154: “0, 1, 16, and 18 are rejected” — same comment as above, what does this mean?
157 - 171: This is a repeat of the text in 66 - 80 and should be removed.
173: I note here you skip to Section 4 and there is no Section 3. Subsequent numbers follow Section 4.
183: “as will be discussed” — add “be”
185: Suggest start a new paragraph at “Figure 2 shows…”
188: “temporal evolution than the one” — replace “than” with “as”
227: What does “bulk height” mean? Center of mass?
232: “effective heights” — again, what does this mean? Here and previous comment please establish a definition and be consistent so that data are not mis-applied.
256: “eruption, allowing” — add comman
258: I would say “low spatial coverage” is more appropriate than “low horizontal resolution.” It’s a coverage matter rather than a resolution issue.
269: Here and throughout paragraph, since you labeled Figure 5 in parts a, b, c, … suggest you refer explicitly to those panels by letter so it is clear what to look at. Figure 5c I don’t understand what the red line is, and there are no units given for the y-axis (I infer K).
275: “second orbit” — not clear what you mean, as this is the third orbit from left to right. You describe the leftmost (latest) orbit first. Maybe the plume was encountered on “a second orbit”?
281: Suggest start a new paragraph at “We visually inspected…”
290: “aerosol loading,” — add comma
312: “Ghassan Taha” and “Clarissa Lieven”
315: “times, randomly” — add comma
354: You do not appear to refer to or discuss the left hand panel in Figure 9. Omit.
434: “HTHH” is being used, but has not explicitly been connected to the Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’apei eruption and should be noted.
768: In the legend for Figure 1 there are parenthetical notations ([FP], [NT], …) with no explanation. Please either remove or explain.
808: Should be “particulate” instead of “particular”
826: I believe the figure and legend are correct, but caption refers here to the yellow line when the orange line is meant, and vice versa on the following line. Please correct or clarify.
872: Label or add in caption that altitude is in km.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1116-RC1 -
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1116', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Aug 2023
I agree with the comments of the other reviewer overall and have little to add. I highly recommend that the manuscript be professionally copy-edited.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1116-RC2 -
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
-
AC1: 'AC- Response-to-CC1-CC2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'AC- Response-to-Reviewer1-2', Jean-Paul Vernier, 10 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1116/egusphere-2023-1116-AC2-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 569 | 194 | 34 | 797 | 28 | 22 |
- HTML: 569
- PDF: 194
- XML: 34
- Total: 797
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
- The impact of volcanic eruptions, pyrocumulonimbus plumes, and the Arctic polar vortex intrusions on aerosol loading over Tomsk (Western Siberia, Russia) as observed by lidar from 2018 to 2022 V. Gerasimov et al. 10.1080/01431161.2024.2377833
- In situ measurements of perturbations to stratospheric aerosol and modeled ozone and radiative impacts following the 2021 La Soufrière eruption Y. Li et al. 10.5194/acp-23-15351-2023
Jean-Paul Vernier
Thomas Aubry
Claudia Timmreck
Anja Schmidt
Lieven Clarisse
Fred Prata
Nicolas Theys
Andrew Prata
Graham Mann
Hyundeok Choi
Simon Carn
Richard Rigby
Susan Loughlin
John Stevenson
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2088 KB) - Metadata XML