the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impact of volcanic sulfate aerosols on the stratospheric heating: implications on the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation
Abstract. Large and moderate volcanic eruptions significantly impact Earth's atmosphere by releasing sulphur emissions, thereby affecting atmospheric dynamics and QBO. Using the ECHAM6-HAMMOZ model, we show the impact of eruptive volcanoes on the tropical stratosphere and Quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) from 2001 to 2013. Our simulations with volcanoes, when compared without volcanoes, show that volcanic sulfate aerosols enhance the stratospheric aerosol optical depth (SAOD) two months after the eruption of Rabaul (0.0034); Sarychev (0.0040) and Nabro (0.0097). The enhanced SOAD in the tropics (0.0014) led to a radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) by -0.92±0.34 W m-2 and at the surface by -0.88±0.18 W m-2 in the tropical region. The volcanic aerosol precursors enter the tropical stratosphere, propagating upward and enhancing sulfate aerosol concentrations by 46.95 ng m⁻³ and heating rates by 0.13±0.05×10⁻² K d⁻¹. The QBO estimated from model simulations using the wavelet analysis shows that stratospheric heating caused by the volcanoes reduces the amplitude of the QBO and disrupts its phases, resulting in the prolongation of the easterly phase by ~12 to 20 months and the westerly phase by ~16 to 24 months. The secondary meridional circulation induced by the QBO produces the double-peak structure in the amplitude near the equator, with peaks at 10 hPa and at 50 hPa. Our study points out that moderate and large volcanoes modulate the QBO. Since QBO also modulates tropical convection and weather, we suggest including volcanic eruptions and the QBO in weather prediction models for a better forecast.
Competing interests: More than one author is Editor of the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and physics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(1641 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(245 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3825', Flossie Brown, 16 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3825', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Feb 2025
The authors investigate the impact of small to moderate volcanic eruptions between 2001 – 2013 on the stratospheric aerosol layer, radiative forcing and QBO. While the topic is important and the paper relatively well written, I’m afraid that the approach the authors chose does not allow to gain meaningful results that warrant publication in the current state.
In particular, if I understand correctly, the authors performed one single simulation with volcanic eruptions and a second simulation without them, and inferred the role of aerosols by looking at differences between the two cases. While such an approach might just about be enough to obtain changes in stratospheric AOD and aerosols, it is nowhere near sufficient to infer impacts on the radiative forcing or stratospheric circulation / QBO, where the results reflect mostly changes caused by natural interannual variability (in meteorological conditions, clouds.. etc) and not a true impact of volcanic activity. And so, their results are very misleading, as they suggest relatively small changes in stratospheric aerosols can have an unproportionally large impact on the radiative budget and atmospheric circulation. E.g. their radiative forcing results are almost a factor of 10 larger than previously estimated (Bruhl et al., 2015; Schmidt et al., 2018). And while the other studies also performed only one simulation, they either estimated radiative effects from a double call to the radiative scheme that isolates the impacts of aerosols (Bruhl et al., 2015) or performed simulations using specified dynamics setup, i.e. where meteorology is nudged to observed conditions (Schmidt et al., 2018). Given the focus here was to, among other, look at impacts on QBO, I understand why the authors decided to use free-running simulations (and not nudged ones). However, a single simulation over a relatively short period (~14 years) is not sufficient to obtain that result with any confidence, where instead a much larger ensemble size would be needed.
Therefore, I’m afraid I cannot recommend a publication in the current form, at least not until the authors perform a number of additional ensemble members (5? 10?) and redo the analysis using a much larger data set. I’d also recommend the use of double call to radiative scheme to obtain values of radiative forcing changes (if possible).
Finally, on line 222-223, the authors state that “QBO is not included in the ECHAM6 HAMMOZ model used in this study”. I’m assuming it’s a typo or incorrect phrasing, because if the model doesn’t simulate QBO, then I’m not sure what is analyzed in this study. Please clarify.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3825-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
99 | 28 | 8 | 135 | 21 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 99
- PDF: 28
- XML: 8
- Total: 135
- Supplement: 21
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1