the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessing the stratospheric temperature response to volcanic sulfate injections by Mt. Pinatubo: insights from the Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project
Abstract. Some major volcanic eruptions, such as the one of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, can inject large amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere, leading to a volcanic aerosol cloud. This dense aerosol cloud induces a radiative heating of the stratosphere, causing ozone and water vapour changes, thereby altering middle atmospheric dynamics and chemistry. The scale of these impacts for varying injection amounts and heights on stratospheric temperature anomalies is still highly uncertain. Here we analyse specially designed chemistry-climate model experiments following the Historical Eruptions SO2 Emission Assessment Protocol (HErSEA) under the Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project (ISA-MIP). The results confirm our general understanding of the stratospheric aerosol forcing due to extra SO2 injection, while simultaneously highlighting structural differences between models. Overall, for the Pinatubo-like experiments the multi-model mean temperature anomalies agree well with meteorological reanalyses data sets, and we find that in most cases, differences between models are larger than differences for individual models across experiments with varying injection amounts and altitudes. Differences in transport, radiative transfer, and microphysics as well as the characterization of aerosol size distributions play a crucial role for the emergence of the spread in the modelled temperature response. Our results show further, that the sensitivity of the stratospheric temperature response to model selection is also apparent in other MIPs. Hence, we argue for caution in attribution studies and the interpretation of stratospheric aerosol injection experiments relying on individual or few models.
Competing interests: Simone Tilmes is an editor for ACP.
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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(9599 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 17 Jan 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5915', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jan 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 245 | 163 | 20 | 428 | 25 | 29 |
- HTML: 245
- PDF: 163
- XML: 20
- Total: 428
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This paper is an impressive amount of work resulting in a really nice study and a pleasant read. Particularly nice is the massive comparison between models, reanalysis, and observational products. The paper is quite well done. I really like Section 3.1 where you justify the selection of a core experiment. I only have a few minor comments, mostly about clarifying details and improving replicability.
The abstract basically says, “different models have similarities and differences.” Can you be more specific?
Lines 47-54: While I like talking about SAI, this paragraph just sort of seems like a non sequitur. Can you better tie it into the points you’re making?
Section 2.1: You need more details in your experiment descriptions. What year(s) do you use to create the SSTs? Why are you specifying the injection amounts as Tg S if you’re only injecting SO2? Are you injecting throughout the entire altitude range equally, and how do you handle models with different vertical resolutions?
Line 116: What do you mean by reinitialize? To a particular state? And where do you get that state?
Line 145: Was the diffusion changed permanently starting on January 1? Or was it perturbed for a day and then changed back? And if permanently, how might this have affected your results?
Lines 194-195: Some missing references. Also, is ozone prescribed or interactive? You talked about this in the previous subsections.
Lines 222-224: So this is a bulk scheme?
Table 1: It might be useful if you had a column talking about the aerosol scheme, at least talking about bulk, modal, sectional, etc.