the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Analysis of the global atmospheric background sulfur budget in a multi-model framework
Abstract. Sulfate aerosol in the stratosphere is an important climate driver, causing solar dimming in the years after major volcanic eruptions. Hence, a growing number of general circulation models are adapting interactive sulfur and aerosol schemes to improve the representation of relevant chemical processes and associated feedbacks. However, uncertainties of these schemes are not well constrained. Stratospheric sulfate is modulated by natural emissions of sulfur-containing species, including volcanic eruptive, and anthropogenic emissions. Model intercomparisons have examined the effects of volcanic eruptions, whereas the background conditions of the sulfur cycle have not been addressed in a global model intercomparison project. Assessing background conditions in global models allows us to identify model discrepancies as they are masked by large perturbations such as volcanic eruptions, yet may still matter in the aftermath of such a disturbance.
Here, we analyze the atmospheric burden, seasonal cycle, and vertical and meridional distribution of the main sulfur species among nine global atmospheric aerosol models that are widely used in the stratospheric aerosol research community. We use observational and reanalysis data to evaluate model results. Overall, models agree that the three dominant sulfur species in terms of burdens (sulfate aerosol, OCS, and SO2) make up about 98 % of stratospheric sulfur and 95 % of tropospheric sulfur. However, models vary considerably in the partitioning between these species. Models agree that anthropogenic emission of SO2 strongly affects the sulfate aerosol burden in the Northern Hemispheric troposphere, while its importance is very uncertain in other regions. The total deposition of sulfur varies among models, deviating by a factor of two, but models agree that sulfate aerosol is the main form in which sulfur is deposited. Additionally, the partitioning between wet and dry deposition fluxes is highly model dependent. We investigate the areas of greatest variability in the sulfur species burdens and find that inter-model variability is low in the tropics and increases towards the poles. Seasonality in the southern hemisphere is depicted very similar among models. Differences are largest in the dynamically active northern hemispheric extratropical region, hence some of the differences could be attributed to the differences in the representation of the stratospheric circulation among underlying general circulation models. This study highlights that the differences in the atmospheric sulfur budget among the models arise from the representation of both chemical and dynamical processes, whose interplay complicates the bias attribution. Several problematic points identified for individual models are related to the specifics of the chemistry schemes, model resolution, and representation of cross-tropopause transport in the extratropics. Further model intercomparison research is needed focusing on the clarification of the reasons for biases, given also the importance of this topic for the stratospheric aerosol injection studies.
-
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
(5474 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5474 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1655', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Sep 2023
This is a long paper, and it seems to border somewhere between comprehensive and tedious. It would be nice for the science issues to be separated from the listing of values for each and every model for each and every variable. Perhaps the paper could be made quite a bit shorter, with many of the details moved to the appendix, for those interested in them. The conclusions are that models are different from each other and different from the available observations. But what now? Why is this? What specifically has to be addressed to improve them? And how important are these climatologies for non-volcanic periods? How much do these differences affect their responses to volcanic eruptions or potentially to climate intervention?
There are problems with several of the plots. The complete seasonal cycle is not plotted, with the variations from December to January missing. Italics should not be used for units. Many of the contour labels cannot be read with a background very similar to the text. Units for pressure should be hPa, and not Pa.
In many places, “notably” or “It should be noted” are used, and all should be deleted. Every sentence in the paper should be noted or it should not be in the paper.
Several acronyms, including SAOD and UTLS are not defined. And for SAOD, at what wavelength? And SAD is defined multiple times.
Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere are names and should be capitalized. And it would be better to use NH and SH as acronyms for them throughout the paper rather than just occasionally.
The 56 comments in the attached manuscript all have to be addressed.
- AC1: 'Author's Response on egusphere-2023-1655', Christina Brodowsky, 21 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1655, observations missing', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2023
General comments
The paper presents a comparison of time-slice simulations by 9 chemistry climate models for a volcanically quiet situation. The idea goes back to a SSIRC (Stratospheric Sulfur and its Role in Climate) meeting in 2013 and a paper in 2018. The results show that the outliers are models with inappropriate horizontal resolution (e.g. Lofverstrom and Liakka, 2018) or with lack of important parts of sulfur chemistry. This should be addressed also in the conclusions.
A problem in the generally well written paper is that available satellite observations of OCS and middle atmospheric SO2 and the reanalysis data (ERA5 or ERA-I) are not used in the comparisons but only multi-model averages instead (except for the tropopause height). This should be improved before publication.Specific comments
Line 30: A reference to Watts (2000) would be useful here too (also in line 324).
Line 243ff: Which sulfur species are included? This model is the only one where this information is missing.
Line 263 or 282: Two important datasets are missing: MIPAS OCS by Glatthor et al. (2017) and MIPAS SO2 up to 45 km (Höpfner et al., 2013). This should be also included in Figure 1 and later.
Line 392: Add: "and missing OCS, see later".
Line 550: This is in contradiction to MIPAS data.
Figure 6: Please include MIPAS data (caution with averaging kernel effect, Glatthor et al., 2017).
Line 584: Replace "polar" by "Antarctic".
Figure 7: Fill in MIPAS data in panel k. Here it might be useful to display only the ones of Höpfner et al. (2013) which show the secondary maximum due to OCS photolysis and also the increase in the middle stratosphere simulated e.g. by WACCM.
Line 628ff: Modify corresponding text.
Figure A1: Please comment on outgassing volcanoes in caption. Compared to standard references some important ones appear to be missing in scenario NAT.
Figure A3: Why is there no comparison with ERA-I?Technical corrections
Figure 1: Some fonts too small.
Figure 3: Please include more ticks at the abscissa in panels a-e. List the peak values of ULAQ in panels s,t in the caption. Include a remark there that panel u-y include only a subset of models (?).
Line 348: Include "e.g.".
Line 548: Typo in volcano name.
Figure 5 and 6: Is there a gap between Dec 15 and Jan 15? This looks odd, please improve that.
Line 656: Typo or grammar problem.
Figure A2-A4: Consider superscripts for the units in the captions.
Please correct several typos in author names and missing subscripts in the reference list. There are also wrong links (lines 1065 and 1114). Don't repeat identifiers several times (line 816f).References
Glatthor, N., M. Höpfner, A. Leyser, G. P. Stiller, T. von Clarmann, U. Grabowski, S. Kellmann, A. Linden, B.-M. Sinnhuber, G. Krysztofiak, and K.A. Walker: Global carbonyl sulfide (OCS) measured by MIPAS/Envisat during 2002–2012, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2631–2652, doi:10.5194/acp-17-2631-2017, 2017.
Höpfner, M., N. Glatthor, U. Grabowski, S. Kellmann, M. Kiefer, A. Linden, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, T. von Clarmann, B. Funke, and C. D. Boone: Sulphur dioxide (SO2) as observed by MIPAS/Envisat: Temporal development and spatial distribution at 15–45 km altitude, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10,405–10,423, doi:10.5194/acp-13-10405-2013, 2013.
Lofverstrom, M. and J. Liakka: The influence of atmospheric grid resolution in a climate model-forced ice sheet simulation, The Cryosphere, 12, 1499–1510, doi:10.5194/tc-12-1499-2018, 2018.
Watts, S.F.: The mass budgets of carbonyl sulfide, dimethyl sulfide, carbon disulfide and hydrogen sulfide, Atmos. Environ., 34, 761–779, 2000.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1655-RC2 - AC1: 'Author's Response on egusphere-2023-1655', Christina Brodowsky, 21 Dec 2023
- AC1: 'Author's Response on egusphere-2023-1655', Christina Brodowsky, 21 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1655', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Sep 2023
This is a long paper, and it seems to border somewhere between comprehensive and tedious. It would be nice for the science issues to be separated from the listing of values for each and every model for each and every variable. Perhaps the paper could be made quite a bit shorter, with many of the details moved to the appendix, for those interested in them. The conclusions are that models are different from each other and different from the available observations. But what now? Why is this? What specifically has to be addressed to improve them? And how important are these climatologies for non-volcanic periods? How much do these differences affect their responses to volcanic eruptions or potentially to climate intervention?
There are problems with several of the plots. The complete seasonal cycle is not plotted, with the variations from December to January missing. Italics should not be used for units. Many of the contour labels cannot be read with a background very similar to the text. Units for pressure should be hPa, and not Pa.
In many places, “notably” or “It should be noted” are used, and all should be deleted. Every sentence in the paper should be noted or it should not be in the paper.
Several acronyms, including SAOD and UTLS are not defined. And for SAOD, at what wavelength? And SAD is defined multiple times.
Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere are names and should be capitalized. And it would be better to use NH and SH as acronyms for them throughout the paper rather than just occasionally.
The 56 comments in the attached manuscript all have to be addressed.
- AC1: 'Author's Response on egusphere-2023-1655', Christina Brodowsky, 21 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1655, observations missing', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2023
General comments
The paper presents a comparison of time-slice simulations by 9 chemistry climate models for a volcanically quiet situation. The idea goes back to a SSIRC (Stratospheric Sulfur and its Role in Climate) meeting in 2013 and a paper in 2018. The results show that the outliers are models with inappropriate horizontal resolution (e.g. Lofverstrom and Liakka, 2018) or with lack of important parts of sulfur chemistry. This should be addressed also in the conclusions.
A problem in the generally well written paper is that available satellite observations of OCS and middle atmospheric SO2 and the reanalysis data (ERA5 or ERA-I) are not used in the comparisons but only multi-model averages instead (except for the tropopause height). This should be improved before publication.Specific comments
Line 30: A reference to Watts (2000) would be useful here too (also in line 324).
Line 243ff: Which sulfur species are included? This model is the only one where this information is missing.
Line 263 or 282: Two important datasets are missing: MIPAS OCS by Glatthor et al. (2017) and MIPAS SO2 up to 45 km (Höpfner et al., 2013). This should be also included in Figure 1 and later.
Line 392: Add: "and missing OCS, see later".
Line 550: This is in contradiction to MIPAS data.
Figure 6: Please include MIPAS data (caution with averaging kernel effect, Glatthor et al., 2017).
Line 584: Replace "polar" by "Antarctic".
Figure 7: Fill in MIPAS data in panel k. Here it might be useful to display only the ones of Höpfner et al. (2013) which show the secondary maximum due to OCS photolysis and also the increase in the middle stratosphere simulated e.g. by WACCM.
Line 628ff: Modify corresponding text.
Figure A1: Please comment on outgassing volcanoes in caption. Compared to standard references some important ones appear to be missing in scenario NAT.
Figure A3: Why is there no comparison with ERA-I?Technical corrections
Figure 1: Some fonts too small.
Figure 3: Please include more ticks at the abscissa in panels a-e. List the peak values of ULAQ in panels s,t in the caption. Include a remark there that panel u-y include only a subset of models (?).
Line 348: Include "e.g.".
Line 548: Typo in volcano name.
Figure 5 and 6: Is there a gap between Dec 15 and Jan 15? This looks odd, please improve that.
Line 656: Typo or grammar problem.
Figure A2-A4: Consider superscripts for the units in the captions.
Please correct several typos in author names and missing subscripts in the reference list. There are also wrong links (lines 1065 and 1114). Don't repeat identifiers several times (line 816f).References
Glatthor, N., M. Höpfner, A. Leyser, G. P. Stiller, T. von Clarmann, U. Grabowski, S. Kellmann, A. Linden, B.-M. Sinnhuber, G. Krysztofiak, and K.A. Walker: Global carbonyl sulfide (OCS) measured by MIPAS/Envisat during 2002–2012, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2631–2652, doi:10.5194/acp-17-2631-2017, 2017.
Höpfner, M., N. Glatthor, U. Grabowski, S. Kellmann, M. Kiefer, A. Linden, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, T. von Clarmann, B. Funke, and C. D. Boone: Sulphur dioxide (SO2) as observed by MIPAS/Envisat: Temporal development and spatial distribution at 15–45 km altitude, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10,405–10,423, doi:10.5194/acp-13-10405-2013, 2013.
Lofverstrom, M. and J. Liakka: The influence of atmospheric grid resolution in a climate model-forced ice sheet simulation, The Cryosphere, 12, 1499–1510, doi:10.5194/tc-12-1499-2018, 2018.
Watts, S.F.: The mass budgets of carbonyl sulfide, dimethyl sulfide, carbon disulfide and hydrogen sulfide, Atmos. Environ., 34, 761–779, 2000.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1655-RC2 - AC1: 'Author's Response on egusphere-2023-1655', Christina Brodowsky, 21 Dec 2023
- AC1: 'Author's Response on egusphere-2023-1655', Christina Brodowsky, 21 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
484 | 312 | 29 | 825 | 30 | 27 |
- HTML: 484
- PDF: 312
- XML: 29
- Total: 825
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Christina V. Brodowsky
Timofei Sukhodolov
Gabriel Chiodo
Valentina Aquila
Slimane Bekki
Sandip S. Dhomse
Anton Laakso
Graham W. Mann
Ulrike Niemeier
Ilaria Quaglia
Eugene Rozanov
Anja Schmidt
Takashi Sekiya
Simone Tilmes
Claudia Timmreck
Sandro Vattioni
Daniele Visioni
Pengfei Yu
Yunqian Zhu
Thomas Peter
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5474 KB) - Metadata XML