the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Nov 2024
Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Volcano Impact Model Observation Comparison (HTHH-MOC) Project: Experiment Protocol and Model Descriptions
Abstract. The 2022 Hunga volcanic eruption injected a significant amount of water vapor and a moderate amount of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere causing observable responses in the climate system. We have developed a model-observation comparison project to investigate the evolution of volcanic water and aerosols, and their impacts on atmospheric dynamics, chemistry, and climate, using several state-of-the-art chemistry climate models. The project goals are: 1. Evaluate the current chemistry-climate models to quantify their performance in comparison to observations; and 2. Understand atmospheric responses in the Earth system after this exceptional event and investigate the potential impacts in the projected future. To achieve these goals, we designed specific experiments for direct comparisons to observations, for example from balloons and the Microwave Limb Sounder satellite instrument. Experiment 1 is a free-running ensemble experiment from 2022 to 2031. Experiment 2 is a nudged-run experiment from 2022 to 2023 using observed meteorology. To allow participation of more climate models with varying complexities of aerosol simulation, we include two sets of simulations in Experiment 2: Experiment 2a is designed for models with internally-generated aerosol while Experiment 2b is designed for models using prescribed aerosol surface area density. We take model results from the previously developed Tonga-MIP to fulfill Experiment 3, which focuses on the initial dispersion and microphysical evolution of aerosol and water plumes. Experiment 4 is designed to understand the climate impact on the mesosphere from 2022–2027, for which the experiment design is the same as Experiment 1 but for models that resolve the upper stratosphere and mesosphere.
- Preprint
(2019 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3412 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Dec 2024
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlFirst, the site that you link to provide access to the GloSSAC data (the Atmospheric Science Data Center from NASA) is not a suitable repository for scientific publication, as it does comply with the minimum requirements for long-term archival and data preservation. Therefore, you must provide a link and permanent identifier (e.g. DOI) to one of the acceptable repositories that we list in our policy, and that contain the GloSSAC data you have used for your work.
Second, for the figures 1 and 3 in your manuscript you use MLS and OSIRIS data; however, in your Data Availability statement you do not provide information about the repository where it is possible to find the data for such figures. Please, address it and add the required information (link to the repository and permanent identifier) for the repositories containing the MLS and OSIRIS data necessary to replicate the figures.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412-CEC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3412', Jean-Francois Lamarque, 03 Jan 2025
This paper focuses on the description of simulations pertaining to the understanding of the Tonga-Hunga eruption impacts on stratospheric conditions, radiative forcing and climate impacts. The paper is currently quite confusing and as such does not provide a clear understanding on how the results can be used for the stated goals. I have the following comments that the authors should address before submitting a revised version of the paper
1) As fas as I can tell, there is not really an experiment #4. It is just only for models that have a representation of the mesosphere. Unless the authors can better justified the reason to have a specifically defined experiment, it should be removed
2) In table 5, what is exp 1/4? This is never discussed in the paper
3) Lines 146-148: the paper describes a set of experiments designed to isolate the specific roles of SO2 and H2O. How do those map with the numbering of the experiments? This is not clear at all.
4) It is confusing if exp 3 is the same as Tonga-MIP or not. If it is the same, then why is there an exp 3? If it is not the same, then all details should be provided. By the way, the reference to Margot Clyne's thesis is not a valid way to allow readers to access this information. Also, it seems that there is a lot of freedom in the way modeling groups will perform those simulation (fixed SSTs or not, free running or nudged). How will it be possible to intercompare when so many things are different? Is there the assumption that those won't matter? Why not following exp 1 design?
5) If I follow the timeline, results have been available for a few months already by the time this paper was submitted. It would be useful to have some basic results that would show the usefulness of these experiments
6) The authors should clarify what they mean by radiative forcings. Some of the model descriptions include the mention that these are performed as double calls to the radiation. Is that the protocol followed by everyone?
7) In my opinion, it is very different to run a model with fixed SSTs or coupled ocean/sea-ice. Therefore those should not be lumped into the same experiment 1 naming. That will make the analysis very confusing
Minor comments
1) the references line 806-812 are not lined up properly
2) Line 292: those models should be included here as well
3) Line 208: is it adopted or adapted?
4) The goal of nudging (lines 182-184) is not so much to reduce interannual variability as to ensure that the meteorology will be as close as possible to the one observed.
5) Line 191: typo sS
6) Why is Fig. 3 shown? If it is something relevant to the general discussion, it should be moved to the main section, not the model description
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3412', Shuaiqi Wu, 04 Jan 2025
The manuscript presents the overview of the multi-model intercomparison project to investigate the impacts of the HTHH volcanic eruption on atmospheric dynamics, chemistry, and climate with different experiment designs. I think the research goals and questions expected to be answered in this paper are scientifically significant. However, several areas need to be clarified or justified. Description of the analyzation and evaluation of model outputs could be included.
Major comments:
- The scope and relevance of Exp4 to the overall project goals are relatively unclear compared with other experiments. It feels more like a sub-Exp affiliated to Exp1 according to Table 2 & 5.
- The manuscript lacks a more detailed description of how models’ performance will be evaluated and compared with each other.
- The data sources of SST are not clear for different experiments and models. Some model descriptions contain SST data source, but some don’t. For example, Lines 594-595 only state that MIROC-CHASER for Exp1 will use 10-year mean of observed SST but didn’t mention which dataset is used; In terms of Exp2, MIROC-CHASER uses NOAA OISST (Line: 598) data but WACCM6 uses so-called 10-year climatological SST mean (Line: 634). I think authors should provide more complete information about data sources and initial/boundary conditions for all models and experiments.
- Meanwhile, how to compare simulated results if they use different data inputs and initial/boundary conditions? Partitioning sources of uncertainty might be needed.
Minor comments:
- Line 104: the ‘aerosol optical depth’ is a singular noun. It should not be followed by ‘are’.
- A figure plotting some preliminary results might be helpful.
- I am not sure if Table 4 is important enough to take a whole page in the main content. I would rather to see a table listing output variables.
- I assume ‘Exp1/4 (coupled ocean)’ in Table 5 (Line: 302) refers to ‘Exp1 and Exp4 with the coupled ocean simulation (Line: 624)’ but it should be identified earlier to avoid confusion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 328 | 36 | 8 | 372 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 328
- PDF: 36
- XML: 8
- Total: 372
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1